The U.S. Postal Service is buying nearly 85,000 new vehicles, and estimates about 40% of them will be electric vehicles.
That includes 50,000 new delivery trucks, about half of which will be electric. Groups that advocate for EV adoption say it's a big step in the right direction, but think the percentage should be even higher.
Bruce Westlake with the East Michigan Electric Auto Association said mail trucks do a lot of starting and stopping and spend a lot of time parked, and points out that EVs are well-equipped for that.
"The maintenance of a Postal Service vehicle probably includes a lot of repair of brakes," said Westlake. "And if you look at the past record for electric vehicles, brakes are the one thing they don't go through very often. because that's recovered through the motor itself, through regenerative braking."
Under the original USPS plan, only 10% of its vehicles were going to be electric, but the numbers increased after facing pressure - including a lawsuit from 16 states, the District of Columbia, and national environmental groups.
The USPS Office of the Inspector General has found only about 1.5% of postal routes would be poorly suited to EV deployment because they're longer than 70 miles.
Westlake added that during hot summers, electric delivery trucks should make a big difference for mail carriers, in addition to the community.
"If we look at the postal workers themselves, about half of their time is parked," said Westlake. "They would benefit from having essentially a portable air conditioner to make sure that they're in good working conditions."
The new trucks will be put into use in late 2023. And the Postal Service is extending the public comment period on them until August 15.
Groups hope this purchase will contribute to the Biden administration's goal of electrifying the entire government fleet by 2035.
get more stories like this via email
Conservation groups in Texas want the Environmental Protection Agency to continue its push for tighter restrictions on methane emissions at oil and gas well sites, especially in the Permian basin.
The group Environment Texas testified at recent EPA hearings. It cites flaring as a major concern, the process of burning methane into the air at well sites instead of capturing and using it.
Michael Lewis, a clean air and water advocate with Environment Texas, said flaring is not only damaging to the environment, but harmful to humans - especially those who are nearby.
"Methane, especially in Texas, causes health problems," he said. "If you live close to these sites, you have a higher rate of leukemia, higher rate of lymphoma, higher rate of cancer. It's not uncommon to see even radio-nucleotides, so literal radiation."
Lewis said wells are often located in economically disadvantaged areas where people have few options to avoid the pollution they emit. The EPA has also proposed rules to encourage oil companies to pursue recent advancements in methane-mitigation and leak-detection technology.
According to the Environmental Defense Fund, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. But beyond emissions, advocates are also calling for stricter pipeline regulations.
In Texas, Lewis said, there are tens of thousands of miles of gas and oil pipeline, "much of which is still unregulated. And pipeline leaks. We don't have enough inspectors, we don't have people going out and checking them. Now, with some of our new equipment that's out there, such as drone monitoring, we can be checking this stuff."
The Environmental Defense Fund has said the EPA's proposal to tighten rules on emissions is a step in the right direction, the group wants to see stronger action to end pollution and reduce flaring.
get more stories like this via email
Minnesota has surpassed the goals it set more than a decade ago for renewable-energy standards. But as the climate crisis grows larger, there's a push to adopt new goals supporters say will benefit the state in multiple ways.
The start of the legislative session saw Democratic leaders and clean-energy advocates revive calls for Minnesota to approve a plan for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. The House version passed out of committee this week, and a Senate panel will soon take it up.
Michael Noble, executive director of the group Fresh Energy, said given the strides the state has already made in transitioning to sources such as wind and solar, meeting the revised goal should be achievable.
"Zero-carbon electricity sources are universally available and low cost," he said, "and our three largest utilities have already committed to get all of the carbon out of the electric supply. "
Companies such as Xcel Energy have carbon-free goals by 2050, but some on the utility side have expressed concern about reaching a higher standard while trying to balance energy demands and costs.
Supporters stress that relying on cleaner power sources will help control energy bills because they're cheaper to produce than coal-fired power. Beyond reducing emissions, backers are convinced this approach would lead to more jobs and innovation in Minnesota.
Gregg Mast, executive director of the group Clean Energy Economy Minnesota, said the plan provides flexibility by offering utilities "offramps" if they convey the need to reassess their contributions. He said that should put customers at ease about trying to achieve the 2040 goal while navigating volatile energy markets.
"Energy consumers should know that this will ensure that we continue to have clean, reliable and affordable energy," he said.
Noble said Minnesota doesn't want to lose ground in the global transition to clean energy.
"All 192 nations have now pledged to be net carbon neutral by the middle of the century," he said, "and this positions Minnesota to attract businesses and attract industries who want low-carbon, zero-carbon energy."
Disclosure: Fresh Energy contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Experts are warning Colorado households utility bills currently making their way to mailboxes are likely to be even higher than the supersized bills people received for November's energy use.
Denise Stepto, chief communications officer for Energy Outreach Colorado, said as energy prices have remained stubbornly high, December brought an arctic blast and subzero temperatures right in time for winter holiday celebrations.
"This next bill, we think, is going to be the higher one, much higher," Stepto explained. "It was a holiday, so more people were gathered in a home, lights on, things cooking, everything going."
It is a problem, Stepto said, because many Coloradans may have already tapped one-time-only assistance through Energy Outreach Colorado and the state's Low-Income Energy Assistance Program.
Calls to Energy Outreach Colorado's Heat Help Line are up 43% compared with the same time period last year. The week ending Dec. 18, they received more than 16,000 calls, up from 9,000 the week before, which is the largest call volume in two years of tracking.
Stepto pointed to one call she fielded this week from a mother trying to get help for her veteran son with a disability who was struggling to afford his high energy bills. She pointed out there has been an increased sense of desperation, especially for fixed and low-income households.
Stepto worries higher-than-average utility bills, while not sustainable, are likely to continue through the winter months.
"People are not abusing their energy use," Stepto argued. "They're keeping their thermostat as low as they can. They're being energy wise, it's just the cost is the cost. So there's only so much that folks can do."
During the week ending Jan. 8, Energy Outreach Colorado released more than $473,000 to help 728 struggling households who applied for assistance to pay utility bills. People can still get help -- to make sure utilities are not disconnected, and connect with other programs for which they qualify -- by calling Energy Outreach Colorado's helpline: 866-432-8435.
Disclosure: Energy Outreach Colorado contributes to our fund for reporting on Energy Policy. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email