Illinois' largest utility unveils $100M to spur EV adoption
As the Trump administration attempts to block billions of dollars in federal funds for electric vehicle charging, an Illinois utility is moving forward with a massive investment to promote wider EV adoption.
At a press conference last Thursday ahead of the 2025 Chicago Auto Show, ComEd announced $100 million in new rebates designed to boost EV fleet purchases and charging stations across northern Illinois. The program helps meet the mandate for the state's Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, which calls for 1 million EVs on the roads by 2030.
Of the $100 million, $53 million is available for business and public-sector EV fleet purchases, while nearly $38 million is designated to upgrade infrastructure for non-residential charger installations. An additional nearly $9 million is intended for residential charging stations.
The money is in addition to $87 million announced last year for similar incentives.
Funding for the rebate programs comes from distribution charges and 'has nothing to do' with the federal government, Melissa Washington, senior vice president of customer operations and strategic initiatives at ComEd, said during an interview. This means that there is no risk of withholding or reductions from the Trump administration.
Washington anticipates continued high levels of interest and engagement in the programs.
'Based upon what we saw last year, there was a quick demand. Applications came right away the minute we opened it up. I would imagine people will be going on [ComEd's website] and immediately trying to see what we have available for them,' Washington said.
Since launching its EV rebate program last year, ComEd has funded projects in more than 300 ZIP codes, including nearly 3,500 residential and commercial charging ports, and provided funding for municipalities, businesses, and school districts to purchase more than 200 new and pre-owned EV fleet vehicles. The utility designated more than half the available rebate funds for low-income customers and projects in environmental justice communities.
ComEd also partners with the Chicago-area Metropolitan Mayors Caucus on the EV Readiness Program, which helps local governments create ordinances and safety and infrastructure plans to accommodate the growing demand for EVs in their communities. Since its initiation, more than 41 northern Illinois municipalities have participated in the program.
The importance of utility funding for the rebate programs was highlighted by Susan Mudd, senior policy advocate for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, who noted that a St. Louis-area school district is still waiting on 21 electric school buses that had been promised and ordered. The district has been unable to access the online portal to receive its federal funding, due to an executive order issued by the Trump administration.
'During the last four years, the federal government was a reliable partner with policies and programs that helped propel electric vehicle production and implementation and updated standards to save consumers money while cleaning up the air,' Mudd said at the press conference. 'That order has already meant that students who would already be riding quiet zero-emission buses are still on old, dirty diesel ones, and the business that was to deliver them can't get paid.
'While the new administration is willing to sacrifice the health of people across the U.S. and the world, thankfully, we in Illinois can continue to improve things,' Mudd said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
3 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
CBS News
6 minutes ago
- CBS News
Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado sue Trump administration over plan to distribute machine gun converters
Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent it from distributing devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be converted into machine guns. The lawsuit stems from a May 16 settlement agreement between the Trump administration and Rare Breed Triggers, a company that manufactures devices known as forced reset triggers. The lawsuit also includes Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C. What are forced reset triggers? Forced Reset Triggers, or FRTs, are aftermarket triggers that enable semi-automatic guns to fire as fast as fully automatic weapons. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ordered the company to halt sales and declared that FRTs would be considered machine guns under federal law, which consequently made them subject to tighter restrictions. Rare Breed Triggers disputed the ATF's stance and continued selling its FRTs, leading the federal government to file a lawsuit against the company in 2023. At the same time, the National Association for Gun Rights sued the ATF in federal court in Texas, challenging its classification of the FRT-15 as a machine gun. The May 16 settlement ended the litigation between the U.S. government and Rare Breed Triggers. "The Department's agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue," an announcement by the Department of Justice read. Under the lawsuit, ATF can stop enforcing the law against FRTs and can redistribute the devices previously seized by the agency. "Forced reset triggers turn semi-automatic firearms into weapons of war capable of inflicting devastating impacts on Maryland communities," said AG Brown. "The Trump administration's decision to send these previously seized firearms back to Maryland, where they are illegal, makes our neighbors and children more vulnerable to mass shootings." Suing over forced reset triggers With the lawsuit announced Monday, the states hope to prevent FRTs from being redistributed. "We're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the redistribution of forced reset triggers into our states," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said Monday morning. "This is just part of what we're doing in New Jersey and in the states we're representing to reduce gun violence." Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings said the state banned rapid-fire devices in 2022. Maryland criminal law also bans rapid-fire activators. "These devices enable firearms to fire up to 900 bullets per minute," Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said. "The increased rate of fire allows carnage and chaos to reign on the streets. Everyone nearby becomes vulnerable to serious injury or death." Maryland sues gun manufacturer over machine gun converter In a similar move, Maryland and Baltimore sued gun manufacturer Glock in February, alleging the company violated the state's Gun Industry Accountability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Glock contributed to the gun violence crisis by promoting the use of switches, a device that converts a pistol into a machine gun. During the Maryland General Assembly, lawmakers proposed a bill banning a list of weapons that can be converted from semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic using an attachment referred to as an auto-sear, or "switch." Just last week, Baltimore Police arrested a group of teens who they said had multiple guns and ammunition, along with an auto-sear attachment.
CNBC
9 minutes ago
- CNBC
Ron Insana says Trump's spending bill unlikely to generate the economic boom he promised
As he did in his first term as president, President Donald Trump is once again predicting an economic boom the likes of which the U.S. has never before seen. In reviewing the publicly available economic data since Ronald Reagan, the period in which the U.S. grew the fastest with the most job creation did not occur in Trump's first term and is unlikely to do so in this term, the reasons why to be explained shortly. First, a brief review of recent economic history where the biggest economic boom actually took place. Former President Bill Clinton's eight years in office produced nearly 4% annual growth, over 240,000 jobs added per month and an inflation rate that averaged less than 3%, considered very low for that time. The unemployment rate when Clinton first took office was 7.3% and bottomed at 3.8% by April 2000. By contrast, in Trump's first term, the economy added under 200,000 jobs per month, roughly equal to that of former President Barack Obama, while GDP growth averaged 2.3%, again, roughly equal to Obama's last three years in office, while inflation was less than a quarter percentage point lower than in Obama's second term. (Trump's numbers, of course, were skewed by the Covid crisis, which featured the steepest and shortest recession in U.S. history.) All that leads me to the notion that a boom, the likes of which we have not seen, is unlikely even if the "Big Beautiful Bill" passes through Congress and lands on Trump's desk. And here's why. Nothing new to help growth First, the bill largely extends existing tax rates that were put in place in 2017, without further lowering corporate taxes, as once promised, from 21% to 15%. There are no major additional tax cuts included in the bill. The bill simply makes much of the existing code permanent. No change, no gain. It's true that taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security payments may be eliminated, but that could also lead to employers seeking out ways, in the first two cases anyway, to pay lower wages if tips and overtime go untaxed. Beyond that, there's not much new in the bill that would accelerate economic growth, nor would a failure of the bill's passage lead to a 68% tax increase for everyone in America, as the president has warned . Published analyses have suggested that 68% of Americans could see a 7% increase in their taxes, but not a 68% increase in what they pay. Given the prospects for rising inflation amid recently imposed tariffs, and a subsequent slowing in consumer spending, some of which is already taking place, the economy appears to be downshifting rather than speeding up. Job growth , as we saw on Friday, has moderated for several months in a row and while not reflective of a recession, we're also witnessing a jump in jobless claims, announced layoffs and, according to some published reports, consumers maxing out credit cards to buy the basics. Add to that the reductions in support for the poorest Americans, whether its access to Medicaid or food stamps, and the ingredients for a further slowdown are embedded in the bill, especially for those who can least afford to have government assistance reduced in a meaningful way. Big changes needed The Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts are also affecting government stimulus in so far as key funding in technology, medicine and education are being slashed, threatening the very areas that make the U.S. economy competitive and very much growth-oriented. The bill, by most accounts, also adds from $2.4 trillion to $3.3 trillion to the budget deficit over the next decade. With the current national debt standing at a record $36.2 trillion, higher federal borrowing needs could further push up borrowing costs as investors, especially international ones, now nervous about America's fiscal position could demand higher yields to compensate them for the risk, however unlikely, that the U.S. runs into trouble in paying its bills. During the Clinton administration, tax rates were higher, and yet growth was stronger, 22.7 million jobs were added and the budget deficit turned to surplus by the end of his term. None of those metrics are supported by existing or proposed policy initiatives today. The Clinton boom was second only to that of FDR, whose economy grew strongly as Roosevelt took over, quite literally, at the very bottom of the Great Depression. In modern times, Clinton's economy was stronger than that of any president who came before or after him. None of the policies currently being pursued by this administration offer the same prospects for growth though, even like Clinton, this president has a major technological revolution underway. That big, beautiful bill would require some big, bountiful changes if it hopes to stimulate growth in a way in which all Americans, rather than perhaps a handful of billionaires, will share meaningfully in any future prosperity.
