Lawmakers Introduce Bill Offering USPS More Money for EVs

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Despite the United States Postal Service (USPS) having recently finalized its plan to award Oshkosh Defense a $482 million contract to replace its ramshackle fleet with sparkly new Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDV), Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said it could only afford to make 10 percent of the fleet electric. The USPS would allegedly need another 3 or 4 billion dollars in government assistance to make BEVs happen in meaningful numbers and some lawmakers seem happy to oblige.

A bill sponsored by House Representative Jared Huffman (a California Democrat), introduced on Monday, seeks to allocate $6 billion to increase the number of EVs used by the USPS — with the stipulation that at least 75 percent of the motor pool be zero-emission vehicles. The original plan estimated expenditures of roughly $6.3 billion over the duration of the 10-year program to modernize the United States’ postal fleet. But the service ultimately decided to go with Oshkosh’s internal combustion model, rather than the electric prototypes offered by other manufacturers.

This is at odds with the Biden administration’s promise to transition all government fleets to electric propulsion, though many have suggested that a mixed fleet would actually be preferable. EVs seem ideal for urban parcel deliveries while internal combustion remains the stalwart option for long trips and heavy loads until battery technology improves. The bill appears to account for this by requiring a minimum of half of the USPS’ medium and heavy-duty vehicle purchases to be electric or zero-emission through 2029. All new trucks will need to be zero emissions by 2040, however.

According to Reuters, the proposal is backed by over a dozen key Democrats, including Representative Peter DeFazio, who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Representative Carolyn Maloney, who chairs the Oversight and Reform Committee that oversees the USPS.

“We welcome and are interested in any support from Congress that advances the goal of a Postal Service vehicle fleet with zero emissions, and the necessary infrastructure required to operate it,” the USPS said on Monday. “With the right level of support, the majority of the Postal Service’s fleet can be electric by the end of the decade.”

To be fair, the majority of the Postal Service’s fleet could have also been electric by the end of the decade had it chosen another manufacturer (e.g. Workhorse). But we understand that the chance to toss money at well-connected defense contractors is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the federal government. Er… wait… That happens all the time.

We’re not totally unsympathetic, though. Oshkosh is arguably the company best suited to tackle this from a production standpoint and optioning more internal combustion vehicles probably does maximize their overall utility. The USPS was also spending over a billion dollars per year just keeping its old fleet running, something it says will end once the NGDV has supplanted the old beaters. But there’s something annoying and wholly predictable about the government talking up how the Postal Service would be going all-electric for months, only to see it make an antithetical decision and then state that it needs more money.

[Image: USPS]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
15 of 48 comments
  • Dartdude Dartdude on Mar 10, 2021

    The problem I see is that using EV would still drive up the cost of electricity. Should have a surcharge on homes with electric vehicles. That way the owners pay the true costs.

    • See 1 previous
    • Mcs Mcs on Mar 10, 2021

      What about electric water heater surcharges? They use more than an EV. Since I work more from home, I've got three small supercomputers that put my EV to shame as far as power consumption goes. Actually, with the money that was flowing to the oil companies going to your local utility, they can afford to upgrade to cheaper sources of power and ultimately lower your costs. In case you haven't noticed, those utilities do in fact have their eye on that money and are actively promoting utilities.

  • Stuki Stuki on Mar 10, 2021

    Nothing says Financialized States of Dystopia, like playing office on the stolen fruit of other people's labor.

    • See 10 previous
    • Featherston Featherston on Mar 12, 2021

      @dal20402 ". . . I’m no goldbug either." Outrageous, sir! McKinley 2024, I say!

  • TheEndlessEnigma My 2016 FiST has been the most reliable car I've owned.
  • MaintenanceCosts I already set out total costs, so this time I'll list what's had to be done on my cars (not counting oil changes, recall, or free services):2019 Bolt (25k mi): new 12v battery, pending tires & battery cooling service2016 Highlander (from 43k to 69k mi): new front rotors, new pads all around, new PCV valve, 2x 12v batteries, light bulbs, pending tires2011 335i (from 89k to 91k): new valve cover gasket, new spark plugs, light bulbs, pending rear main seal1995 Legend (from 185k to 203k): timing belt/water pump, new EGR valve + pipe, struts, strut bushings, drive axles, tie rods, rear control arms, other suspension bushings, coolant hose & brake lines throughout, belts, radiator, valve cover gaskets, new power antenna, 12v battery, coils, spark plugs, tires, rear pads... it's an old car!
  • VoGhost Consistent with CR's data. I've spent about $150 total on the Model 3 in six years of ownership, outside of tires.
  • VoGhost It's just plain sad that Posky doesn't know that EV batteries are warrantied for 8 years / 100K miles.
  • Jkross22 It used to be depreciation was the most expensive part of car ownership. Seems like those days are over (New EVs and lux cars excluded). Maintenance + insurance have taken over. Dealerships offering 2 years of maintenance means nothing. That's $200 tops. It's the unexpected repairs - a wiring harness, computer module, heater core, AWD problems - that will cost dearly. Brakes can be expensive since many cars now can't have rotors resurfaced. Even independents are charging a lot for this work.
Next