logo
Federal EV Charger Freeze Sows Chaos, but Chargers Are Still Getting Built

Federal EV Charger Freeze Sows Chaos, but Chargers Are Still Getting Built

WIRED14-02-2025
Chargers funded through the program were due to be just a small share of those opening this year. The longer-term effects aren't yet clear. The US government program that awarded states funding to build public EV chargers along the nation's highways was halted last week by a White House executive order. Photograph:Last week, the US federal government froze a national program intended to send $5 billion in funding to efforts at building charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, with the goal being the construction of half a million new EV chargers in the United States by 2030.
The funding freeze is the latest in a spate of bad news flung at the electric vehicle sector and the wider auto sector. In just his first month in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'terminat[ing] … the electric vehicle mandate' and contemplated high tariffs against Canadian, Mexican, and European goods. Collectively, these moves could devastate the global auto industry.
The EV charging freeze has thrown the still-fledgling charger industry into confusion. Legal experts say the move could be against the law. Still, industry observers say the pause in funding likely won't spell doom for the nation's charging infrastructure—or the wider goal of getting more people into electric cars.
'The industry is not dependent on this,' says Loren McDonald, chief analyst at Paren, an EV charging data-analytics firm. 'They're building out charging infrastructure anyway.' Funding Confusion
The three-year-old National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program is funded by the federal government. But it is administrated by individual states, meaning state officials are responsible for planning charging sites and writing contracts with companies to build and operate them.
Some of those state officials are still evaluating what the funding freeze means for them. The state of Ohio has built 19 stations with NEVI funding—one third of the 57 already open nationwide. The state is 'working to understand the specific funding impacts of the new guidance as it applies to our remaining contracted projects,' Breanna Badanes, a spokesperson for the Ohio DOT's charging initiative, wrote to WIRED in a statement.
In general, states seem to believe that they can move forward with projects where contracts have already been signed, but can't sign any more, even if they've already been awarded the money to build. 'What's going to happen is, any obligations that have been currently made, contracts that have been signed, those are still going to be funded,' US transportation secretary Sean Duffy told Fox Business over the weekend. He acknowledged that killing the NEVI program would require an act of Congress. But he said no more funding will be released until the Transportation Department reevaluates the program. That process likely won't be completed for several months. The Price of Delay?
In the near term, the delay in NEVI funding may be hardly noticeable to EV drivers. For one thing, NEVI-funded chargers are 'a drop in the bucket' of the nation's budding charging infrastructure, says McDonald, the analyst. He estimates that NEVI-funded electric fast-charging ports will account for some 10 or 15 percent of the 16,000-odd due to come online in the US this year. If states follow through with sites that already have contracts, some 750 to 850 of the 1,000 planned NEVI sites will open, McDonald says.
For another, the NEVI program was designed to build chargers that aren't always close to where most EV owners live. The rules of the program (which could be changed now that it's under review) stipulate that the money be used to build stations every 50 miles along high-traffic stretches of national highway. The idea was that the government would subsidize public fast-charging in places where the market might not support it, to enable long-distance trips. But most people aren't taking daily road trips, so they may not immediately notice the delay in construction. Those who do notice might be rural drivers.
In the longer term, the freeze will likely hit a few charging companies in the pocketbook. A handful of firms have built their profit strategies around big funding opportunities like NEVI. 'The freeze does really have an impact on how much infrastructure gets to roll out,' says Jeremy Michalek, professor of engineering and public policy who studies electric vehicles at Carnegie Mellon University. 'It puts some players in a bad spot where they've already invested.'
But other companies, including Elon Musk's Tesla, have opted to use NEVI funds to build only some of their chargers, and others have declined to use the funding opportunity at all. This is in part because stations built with the first tranche of NEVI money are required to be positioned in those 50-mile intervals. Charging companies see more opportunity in other locations.
Ionna, a joint venture between eight major automakers focused on charging, applied for no NEVI funding, and still plans to open more than 1,000 charging ports this year, with a goal of building 30,000 by 2030. 'The team has not stopped,' spokesperson Katherine Rankin wrote in a statement.
Ionna is less interested in NEVI funding because it wants to build chargers in metropolitan areas, CEO Seth Cutler explained at an industry forum earlier this month. 'There's a lot of need for that right now,' he said, pointing to data that the charging company collects on EV registrations and current charger use. Cities are where the company expects to find its future customers—people who live in apartments, or without off-street parking, or in homes with less-than-ideal electricity hookups that prevent them from charging overnight in the garage.
Walmart, too, is quietly building its own 'coast-to-coast' network of chargers. The ride-hail turned charging station firm Revel is also focused on building in cities, where governments are pushing Uber and Lyft to put their drivers in electric cars. Just a few days ago, the company won a $60 million state grant to put nearly 300 new fast chargers in New York.
In the long term, then, the NEVI pause could have the greatest effect on the vibes around electric vehicles, rather than the actual experience of owning one. Freezing the program might have already accomplished what the Trump administration really wants, points out McDonald, the analyst: widespread confusion.
'It's about the messaging: creating chaos and havoc and getting the headlines,' he says. 'Getting everyone in hysterics about canceling this charging program could appease the followers who think EVs are evil.' The antidote might be sticking to the facts.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How tourists are weathering geopolitical uncertainty, currency moves and extreme heat
How tourists are weathering geopolitical uncertainty, currency moves and extreme heat

CNBC

time23 minutes ago

  • CNBC

How tourists are weathering geopolitical uncertainty, currency moves and extreme heat

Geopolitics, currency moves and extreme weather are increasingly playing into tourists' considerations for their next vacation and affecting classic holiday destinations. Staple European spots France, Spain and Croatia, for example, have been facing record-breaking heat in recent weeks, which triggered wildfires in some locations. Conflict in the Middle East has meanwhile meant that tourists in nearby Cyprus were able to see missiles and smoke in the sky from the beach. Sluggish economic growth and inflationary fears, largely linked to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff policies, appear to be making consumers more cautious with their spending. A weaker U.S. dollar has also diminished the currency's purchasing power abroad, with a June report from the European Travel Commission showing that high travel costs, alongside the current global perception of the U.S., have been weighing on voyage plans. "For American travellers, a weaker dollar has fuelled demand for countries where their purchasing power goes further, from parts of Latin America to Southeast Asia. Many are opting for package deals that lock in rates upfront, effectively turning travel planning into a smart financial strategy," Nicholas Smith, holidays digital director at Thomas Cook and the eSky Group online travel agency, told CNBC by email. Travelers also appear to be thinking twice before picking the U.S. as a destination amid political tensions and an increase in reports of tourists being detained or interrogated as they enter or leave the country. Linda Jonczyk, a spokesperson for Europe's largest tour operator TUI, said that there has been "some decline" in bookings for travel to the U.S. Earlier this month, TUI CEO Sebastian Ebel reportedly attributed the pullback to factors including reports of tourists facing border control issues. Elsewhere, Europe remains a key destination, despite challenges. Smith said the British pound to euro conversion rate has remained relatively stable, and the familiarity many tourists have with mainland Europe works in the region's favor. "Greece and Turkey also remain firm favourites, even with seasonal wildfire headlines, thanks to their compelling mix of history, hospitality, and value for money," he said. But, Smith also noted that "Turkey has found itself in a slightly tricky predicament. Inflation has pushed up prices, however as most people book all inclusive, it is somewhat mitigated." Still, there has been a growing trend of consumers swapping heat for cooler destinations as part of so-called "coolcations," Smith said. This includes travelers now turning to countries such as Iceland, Norway and Poland. TUI's Jonczyk meanwhile noted that the company's business is becoming less seasonally focused as it responds to "more of our customers preferring to travel outside the peak summer season as weather patterns especially around the Mediterranean change." According to Thomas Cook's Smith, "holidaymakers in 2025 are factoring in more elements than ever when choosing where to go - from currency movements and visa rules to climate patterns and unique cultural draws." "Travellers are becoming more intentional," he added, noting that tourists are seeking out spots that suit them and their priorities, rather than simply avoiding certain locations. Europe's wildfires are an especially big concern among travelers right now, travel experts said, after heatwaves triggered outbreaks in tourist hotspots including Spain, Portugal and Greece. Flames are still spreading in some locations. Over the weekend, Spanish infrastructure such as roads and train services was impacted, as Madrid deployed military emergency troops to try and constrain the fires, Reuters reported. Fires are also continuing to rage in neighboring Portugal, which last week requested assistance from the European Union and was forced to evacuate residents in some regions. In emailed comments, Portugal's tourism office meanwhile told CNBC that the country "remains a safe, welcoming, and fully operational destination for travelers," and that visitors were being hosted "as planned." Local tourism infrastructure was prepared for challenges like wildfires, they added. Rhys Jones, a travel insurance specialist at GoCompare, told CNBC that the price comparison website has increasingly been receiving inquiries about what how to handle traveling in an area were wildfires raged at one point, or if there's a risk of blazes. "The first thing we recommend doing is checking whether the Foreign Office has deemed your destination safe to travel to," Jones told CNBC by email. "If the Foreign Office says it isn't safe, then it's important you take this advice seriously. If you decide to travel regardless of the warnings and need to claim for something that happens during the trip, your travel insurer could refuse your claim," Jones said. On the flipside, insurers might not pay out if you choose to stay at home despite the Foreign Office saying it is safe to travel and there are no reported issues with flights or accommodation, he added. Jo Rhodes, a travel specialist at U.K. consumer group Which?, echoed this advice. "Holidaymakers should wait until closer to the departure date to see if the holiday can go ahead or what flexible booking options are offered from the tour operator or airline. Travel companies will be prioritising anyone due to depart in the next couple of days," Rhodes told CNBC by email.

9 years ago, Marco Rubio explained why Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional
9 years ago, Marco Rubio explained why Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

9 years ago, Marco Rubio explained why Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional

As a presidential candidate in 2016, Marco Rubio defended the conventional understanding of birthright citizenship, which contradicts the view embraced by the administration he currently serves as secretary of state. The contrast is especially striking because Rubio is one of the defendants in federal lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by executive decree. When New York Times reporter Adam Liptak noted those points this week, State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said it was "absurd" that the paper was "wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories." Yet Rubio's history on this issue is relevant to the birthright citizenship debate because it illustrates the clash between Trump's idiosyncratic reading of the 14th Amendment and a longstanding, bipartisan consensus about its meaning. The 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are "citizens of the United States." An executive order that Trump issued on his first day in office nevertheless purported to exclude U.S.-born children from citizenship when neither parent is a citizen or legal permanent resident. That order is consistent with the 14th Amendment, Trump argues, because the children it covers are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The government's lawyers say jurisdiction requires both "primary allegiance" and "permanent domicile"—criteria that undocumented immigrants, legal visitors, and authorized temporary residents cannot meet. Trump's position is untenable for reasons that Rubio's attorney, election law specialist Jason Torchinsky, explained in a 2016 motion to dismiss a lawsuit by fringe presidential candidate David Librace. The lawsuit argued that Rubio, then a Florida senator, was not qualified to run for president because his Cuban immigrant parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born. That argument was fundamentally mistaken, Torchinsky said, because Rubio was indisputably born in the United States, which was enough to make him a "natural born citizen"—the requirement that Librace claimed Rubio did not meet. "Under the common law of England at the time of the American founding, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and under U.S. historical practice," Torchinsky noted, "anyone born in the United States, regardless of ancestry and immigration status of the parents, is a 'natural born citizen' under the Constitution." English common law recognized just two exceptions to the general rule of citizenship by birth: children of diplomats and foreign military invaders, groups that were not subject to English jurisdiction. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Torchinsky wrote, "there was no question that persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth." That understanding was apparent in early judicial decisions and in subsequent legislative debates. The Supreme Court confirmed it in 1898, when the justices held that a man who had been born to Chinese parents in San Francisco thereby qualified as a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized one additional exception to birthright citizenship in the American context: Like the offspring of diplomats and foreign enemies, it said, "children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes," which had quasi-sovereign status, were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. But apart from those three exceptions, the Court ruled, anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that principle, holding that even children of unauthorized residents are citizens by birth—a position echoed by officials in the executive and legislative branches. This background explains why Rubio's lawyer warned that "entertaining Mr. Librace's argument would jeopardize centuries of precedent." That is precisely what Trump aims to do, but so far his plan has not fared well in the courts. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the issue during its next term. Where will Rubio stand then? According to Pigott, the secretary of state is "100 percent aligned with President Trump's agenda." © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post 9 Years Ago, Marco Rubio Explained Why Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Is Unconstitutional appeared first on

Trump's D.C. Takeover Is a Fascist Spectacle
Trump's D.C. Takeover Is a Fascist Spectacle

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's D.C. Takeover Is a Fascist Spectacle

President Donald Trump seized control of the District of Columbia's municipal police force on Monday and deployed hundreds of federal agents and National Guard soldiers onto the capital's streets in an authoritarian show of force. In a statement, the White House proclaimed that Trump had 'taken bold executive action to liberate Washington, D.C., from the cesspool of crime and homelessness that it has become after decades of unilateral Democrat leadership.' Trump himself told reporters during a press briefing that Monday should be regarded as 'Liberation Day,' a phrase he last used for the announcement of high tariff rates that sent stock markets tumbling this spring. The repurposing of the slogan of a past failure is telling. Monday's move comes as the Trump administration finds itself struggling on a host of other policy fronts. Recent economic data showed that hiring is slowing amid the president's trade wars, which prompted Trump to fire the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner earlier this month. Trump and the Justice Department continue to resist calls to release the Epstein files, which reportedly describe Trump's politically damaging friendship with deceased child-sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Early indications suggest that Trump's latest brainwave is more performative than substantive. One social media user filmed Drug Enforcement Agency agents patrolling the National Mall in full Kevlar gear on Monday morning. The greatest public safety threat that they will likely encounter there are the high prices for the nearby ice cream trucks that cater to passing tourists. At the same time, it is utterly futile to ask whether this operation is really meant to reduce crime in D.C., whether it is a trial run for some future authoritarian maneuver, or whether it is a distraction from all of the administration's other setbacks and scandals. For fascists, shows of armed force are both a means and an end. At minimum, the White House will create some good B-roll footage for Fox News broadcasts to use when hyping fears of urban crime. The plan to take over the city's police force began last week after Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old former DOGE staffer who now works for the Social Security Administration, was allegedly assaulted in a late-night attack near Dupont Circle. Police reports said that he was attacked by as many as 10 teenagers, with officers later apprehending two of them. D.C. experienced an unusual surge in violent crime in 2023, which prompted widespread concern among district and federal leaders. Local crime statistics suggest that the district has turned a corner since then. The Justice Department reported in January that homicides and robberies had dropped by one-third since the post-pandemic peak, with armed carjackings down by half and some assaults at their lowest level in three decades. Pointing to overall crime statistics and long-term trends is a fool's errand, however, since all it takes is a handful of incidents for the White House to claim a crackdown is needed. Trump posted a photo of Coristine's bruised and bleeding face on his personal social media platform shortly after last week's incident and promised action. 'If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore,' the president wrote. 'Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago, then this incredible young man, and so many others, would not have had to go through the horrors of Violent Crime. If this continues, I am going to exert my powers, and FEDERALIZE this City.' Trump's threat to 'federalize' D.C. is nonsensical on its face. The District of Columbia is a federal enclave under Congress's control, not the president's. In one sense, it has been federalized ever since George Washington, who—borrowing from his ample experience as a land speculator in the region—helped select the 10-square-mile district's location during his presidency. Congress formally established the enclave in 1801 and experimented with a variety of different governance structures for the city's residents over the years. In 1973, federal lawmakers enacted the Home Rule Act to allow D.C. to govern itself through an elected mayor and a City Council, similar to those found in other major cities. Richard Nixon, the president at the time, said that he supported the measure as part of his administration's overall commitment to promote local governance. D.C. residents had previously received the right to vote in presidential elections through the Twenty-Third Amendment; they still lack congressional representation to this day. Though D.C. is Congress's responsibility, Trump does have unique powers within the district that he does not enjoy elsewhere. When the president staged a major immigration enforcement operation in Los Angeles earlier this summer, for example, he was able to federalize the state National Guard and send in federal agents from around the country to carry out various raids and suppress protests. At the same time, he had no legal authority to conscript California's civilian state and local law enforcement agencies to assist him. D.C. is different. Among the Home Rule Act's provisions is Section 740, which allows the president to commandeer the Metropolitan Police Department, in whole or in part, whenever he concludes that 'special conditions of an emergency nature' require it. The president's control can only last for 48 hours unless he provides written notice and explanation to the House and Senate leadership of the committees that oversee D.C. governance. From there, the president has control over the MPD for a full month. The House and Senate can choose to extend a president's control for longer by passing a joint resolution to authorize it. The Home Rule Act does not provide any further limits beyond that; its drafters apparently did not envision that an authoritarian president would hold office and misuse the emergency powers. If Congress does not act, it is unclear whether Trump could simply seize control of the D.C. police in 30-day increments for the remainder of his presidency. This is a far cry from 'federalizing' the district, even if one sets aside the misconception behind that term. D.C.'s civilian government remains intact and operational. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb claimed in a post on Twitter on Monday that Trump's actions were 'unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful' and suggested, without elaboration, that district officials were 'considering all their options' on a potential response. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has adopted a conciliatory stance with the Trump administration since its return in January, said that she 'can't say we were totally surprised' by Monday's announcement. She also described it as 'unsettling and unprecedented,' then tried to emphasize recent reductions in violent crime that showed Trump's intervention was unnecessary. For Trump and his supporters, the actual reduction in crime in the nation's capital is probably beside the point. His public remarks depicted the nation's capital as covered in 'filth and decay' and overrun by 'tents, squalor, filth, and crime.' The reality does not matter, only the fascist spectacle that he can manufacture and sell to Fox News viewers. Conservatives have worked tirelessly to convince themselves that urban areas are terrifying and that Democrats are synonymous with crime and disorder. In his comments on Monday, the president even suggested that he would allow the police officers now under his command to abuse citizens at will. 'The police are standing and they're told, 'Don't do anything under any circumstances,'' he said, perhaps referring to protesters of some kind. 'And you can see they want to get at it. And they're standing there, and people are spitting in their face, and they're not allowed to do anything. But now they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.' Well, at least for the next 30 days. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store