Federal NEVI EV charger program cancelled

[risingphoenix]

The money hasn't been spent because it's actually all being vetted like people expect it to be. It isn't just a blank check to companies that install EV chargers.

Have you even looked at the NEVI funding sites? They have already specifically target dollars for each individual station. It’s already been vetted. This auditing and vetting bullshit is a right talking point to deflect from the unconstitutional and illegal move for 1 person to derail a bipartisan bill approved and funded by the US Congress.

Sponsored

 

[Dark-Fx]

Have you even looked at the NEVI funding sites? They have already specifically target dollars for each individual station. It’s already been vetted. This auditing and vetting bullshit is a right talking point to deflect from the unconstitutional and illegal move for 1 person to derail a bipartisan bill approved and funded by the US Congress.

I think you've misread, or at the very least, misunderstood, my comment.

 

[Zoidz]

What is there to debate? Fossil fuels produce CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Renewable energy and EVs significantly reduce greenhouse gases. It’s week known and established science.

You're totally missing the big picture point I am trying to make.

Just a smidgeon of things to debate regarding climate change and EVs, instead of a blanket "there is no debate":
How critical is the need to act?
Why are the attitudes so divergent?
What are the consequences of not acting?
What is the best action?
What is the most achieveable action given funding and resources?
What should be done at the state level vs the federal level?
What is the appropriate level of legislation vs incentive?
What is the most responsible action?
Should we be spending more time exploring mitigation techniques as well as reduction?
What are the most cost effective solutions for mitigation?
What EV technology is truly sustainable?
What are the consequences of BEV long term vs. hydrogen, etc?

I could go on, hopefully you get it now. Shutting down debate is never a good thing.

 

[risingphoenix]

It isn't just a blank check to companies that install EV chargers.

Nope I think I interpreted that exactly as written. Perhaps you misstated your intent.

Regardless, these NEVI grants took so long became they’ve already been thoroughly vetted. So anyone who implies that now they need to be REVETTED by orange is being disingenuous and deflecting from the real unconstitutional act of executive branch interrupting funding of a Congressional bipartisan approved bill.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Regardless, these NEVI grants took so long became they’ve already been thoroughly vetted.

You are literally restating what I stated.

 

[risingphoenix]

You are literally restating what I stated.

I interpreted your statement as implying that these funds NEED to be vetted so that they aren’t written as blank checks. Others in this thread have stated that so I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement to the contrary. It seems we agree.

 

[risingphoenix]

You're totally missing the big picture point I am trying to make.

Just a smidgeon of things to debate regarding climate change and EVs, instead of a blanket "there is no debate":
How critical is the need to act?
Why are the attitudes so divergent?
What are the consequences of not acting?
What is the best action?
What is the most achieveable action given funding and resources?
What should be done at the state level vs the federal level?
What is the appropriate level of legislation vs incentive?
What is the most responsible action?
Should we be spending more time exploring mitigation techniques as well as reduction?
What are the most cost effective solutions for mitigation?
What EV technology is truly sustainable?
What are the consequences of BEV long term vs. hydrogen, etc?

I could go on, hopefully you get it now. Shutting down debate is never a good thing.

All of your questions are assuming and acknowledging the settled science that burning fossil fuels is horrible and must end. The statement I responded to does NOT acknowledge that.

“there are equally intelligent arguments on both sides of the “EVs will save us or the planet argument”, and it’s not clear that the government (any government) should be trying to force EV vs ICE with taxpayer money and regulation (yet).”

Again, there is reasonable debate about the practicalities and speed of necessary change (your questions) and separately arguments with the denial of settled science. I am talking about the latter, which is not useful debate. But feel free to tilt against the windmill!

 

[electruck]

In addition the subsidy locks in CCS.

No, not really - if what you're suggesting is that NEVI sites can only install CCS. Yes, at least one connector must be of type CCS but it's really up to the site to determine the ratio of CCS to J3400 that is deployed. For the next few years, CCS will still primarily be what is in use on non-Tesla vehicles so continuing to support CCS in the near term still makes sense. Over time, things will shift to 100% NACS. Keep in mind that NEVI was drafted prior to the J3400 standard (highlighting the problems of government regulation of technology that evolves far faster than legislation) and, if it even remains relevant which seems unlikely with the current administration, can be revised to require J3400 exclusively.

 

[Dark-Fx]

I interpreted your statement as implying that these funds NEED to be vetted so that they aren’t written as blank checks. Others in this thread have stated that so I apologize if I misinterpreted your statement to the contrary. It seems we agree.

I don't know about other states, my state of Michigan has a set of approved sites, already allocated funds, and a set that are in round 2 of planning. The state knows all of the corridors they want served, and approximately how many stations they need in each corridor. They have an RFP out that was issued in November '24, and are due by March 14th '25. Selections and awards will follow thereafter.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/busin...ng/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-2

The money isn't 100% allocated yet. The state is still in the process of doing it. NEVI was never meant to be completely done in only one or two years. It's the state's responsibility of doing the vetting, there doesn't need to be a centralized federal group responsibility beyond ensuring the "Alternative Fuel Corridors" are being served.

 

[emoore]

You're totally missing the big picture point I am trying to make.

Just a smidgeon of things to debate regarding climate change and EVs, instead of a blanket "there is no debate":
How critical is the need to act?
Why are the attitudes so divergent?
What are the consequences of not acting?
What is the best action?
What is the most achieveable action given funding and resources?
What should be done at the state level vs the federal level?
What is the appropriate level of legislation vs incentive?
What is the most responsible action?
Should we be spending more time exploring mitigation techniques as well as reduction?
What are the most cost effective solutions for mitigation?
What EV technology is truly sustainable?
What are the consequences of BEV long term vs. hydrogen, etc?

I could go on, hopefully you get it now. Shutting down debate is never a good thing.

But that’s not the debate the current administration is willing accept. They are in denial of the original question the climate change is real. That’s the huge issue. There is no debate about that and its impacts to the earth climate system. How we respond and best courses of action are debatable not weather its a real threat or not.

 

[Zoidz]

All of your questions are assuming and acknowledging the settled science that burning fossil fuels is horrible and must end. The statement I responded to does NOT acknowledge that.

“there are equally intelligent arguments on both sides of the “EVs will save us or the planet argument”, and it’s not clear that the government (any government) should be trying to force EV vs ICE with taxpayer money and regulation (yet).”

Again, there is reasonable debate about the practicalities and speed of necessary change (your questions) and separately arguments with the denial of settled science. I am talking about the latter, which is not useful debate. But feel free to tilt against the windmill!

“there are equally intelligent arguments on both sides of the “EVs will save us or the planet argument”, and it’s not clear that the government (any government) should be trying to force EV vs ICE with taxpayer money and regulation (yet).”

I don't read this as a denial that fossil fuels are damaging the earth - exactly where does the OP say that or even imply it? I read this as questioning what is the appropriate response, as I expanded upon above.

Will EVs save the planet at this point? Maybe not is certainly a fair statement. Perhaps it's too late given the level of CO2 emissions and resistance to EVs by some. Vehicles account for 10% of CO2. Reducing vehicles to zero doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

Should the government be trying to force EV vs ICE with taxpayer money and regulation? If the EV resistance is so strong, as it appears to be right now, then maybe the answer is no. Perhaps the money should be spent in other reduction/mitigation/sequestering techniques that address the other 90% of emissions, instead of fighting to the end with people who say "ICE Forever", "Drill Baby Drill", and enjoy coal rolling.

 

[risingphoenix]

I don't know about other states, my state of Michigan has a set of approved sites, already allocated funds, and a set that are in round 2 of planning. The state knows all of the corridors they want served, and approximately how many stations they need in each corridor. They have an RFP out that was issued in November '24, and are due by March 14th '25. Selections and awards will follow thereafter.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/busin...ng/national-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-2

The money isn't 100% allocated yet. The state is still in the process of doing it. NEVI was never meant to be completely done in only one or two years. It's the state's responsibility of doing the vetting, there doesn't need to be a centralized federal group responsibility beyond ensuring the "Alternative Fuel Corridors" are being served.

My state (Colorado) appears the same. This needs to happen, funds have been approved through appropriate channels and are now trying to be subverted by inappropriate and illegal channels. The goal of delay will be successful at the least.

 

[SamDoe1]

It will be challenged in court, it was done through a bill, not an EO so they can’t just cancel it, they need to pass a new bill to adjust it.

This. They can't just cancel it as the money was congressionally appropriated through legislation. This will go to court, a judge will say the memo is void, we'll carry on with life just like we've seen countless times in the past couple weeks lol.

 

[Yossarian]

This EO is not a temporary pause of NEVI funding so that it can be examined before being disbursed, as some have suggested. It is almost certainly one of several deliberate withholds of Congressionally approved funding that the Administration disagrees with, and is part of a deliberate effort challenging the validity of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The inevitable legal challenge will be decided by the Supreme Court at some point.

Until then, NEVI funding, along with other funding efforts supporting clean technology such as the DOE loan to Rivian that are already impounded will likely remain so until the case gets to the SCOTUS. We should not be surprised if the Supreme Court decision is one that breaks from those of the recent past, and finds that the ICA is invalid. Such a decision will essentially uphold the ability of the Executive branch to determine where funding approved by Congress may be spent and would effectively endorse all Presidential impoundment.

Given the above, it would seem likely that the build out of the public EV charging network will be slowed considerably for the next several years. This will have the effect of increasing range anxiety among potential EV customers, and depressing sales. It is of course the potential start of a vicious cycle that could mean not merely the slowing of EV sales in the US and Canada, but perhaps even complete stagnation.

The good news is that movement toward the use of clean technology in general, and EV adoption specifically, will continue in the rest of the world. The bad news is that with the US a victim of an own goal, we voluntarily cede the market for clean technology products, particularly EVs, to the Chinese.

 

[Ventura]

You're totally missing the big picture point I am trying to make.

Just a smidgeon of things to debate regarding climate change and EVs, instead of a blanket "there is no debate":
How critical is the need to act?
Very. Consider it an investment in future generations of humans (who may, or may not, include your descendants). The likelihood and magnitude of various consequence increase with our delayed actions.

Why are the attitudes so divergent?
Politics and, to a lesser extent than in the past, religion.

What are the consequences of not acting?
Rising sea levels. Ocean acidification, Loss of coral reefs and ocean productivity. Shifts in local climate that proceed to quickly for many species to shift their ranges - extinctions, loss of ecosystem function, degradation of wilderness, national forests, blm lands, national parks.

What is the best action?
Multiple actions. Reduction in CO2 production. Investigation of CO2 capture technologies. Alteration of electrical grid, including but not limited to solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear. Development of alternative modes of transportation. Assisting developing nations in adopting clean technologies as they increase energy use...

What is the most achieveable action given funding and resources?
Increase funding. What is the point of DOGE if we can't find waste and reallocate those funds to areas of need? Also, our taxes are relatively low on higher income individuals, we have room to increase them without negative economic impact.

What should be done at the state level vs the federal level?
Provide clear regulation and subsidies for actions we seek to implement with long timelines that give a clear path to innovators and manufacturers.

What is the appropriate level of legislation vs incentive?
Obviously they should be complementary. No more of either than needed to promote the change sought. Data collected to determine if the desired change is manifested. Alteration as needed, with special attention to maintaining a degree of predictability for the markets.

What is the most responsible action?
More than one action, but heavy investment in the future rather than only investing in the wealth of current generations. Pay attention to opportunity cost that impact 10, 50, and 100 years out.

Should we be spending more time exploring mitigation techniques as well as reduction?
Not a dichotomy. Yes, do both but proceed carefully on mitigation that is poorly understood.

What are the most cost effective solutions for mitigation?
We don't know. Use reductions however will have broad benefits and can be implemented while we pursue mitigation.

What EV technology is truly sustainable?
None, at least in the business sense. All technologies change over time. In 50 years people will not be doing what we are today. EV tech is a bridge to whatever is next, as tech always has been.

What are the consequences of BEV long term vs. hydrogen, etc?
Different use scenarios. We likely won't fully implement hydrogen, but if we do it is because we won't develop another tech for long distance travel. For local travel BEV and home charging fits the best case scenario for home owners. Other tech (hybrid, hydrogen) may fit those who do not own homes. It isn't either or. One of each may make sense for many households.

I could go on, hopefully you get it now. Shutting down debate is never a good thing.
You can always debate, but not the validity or importance of addressing climate change. That is a luxury of the old and wealthy, done at the expense of future generations. Like many debates we need to separate the component worth discussion from the part we've moved past.

Sponsored