The GSA Is Shutting Down Its EV Chargers (theverge.com) 191
The General Services Administration (GSA) is shutting down its nationwide electric vehicle (EV) chargers, deeming them "not mission critical." The U.S. government agency also plans to offload newly purchased EVs, reversing initiatives from the Biden administration aimed at transitioning the federal vehicle fleet to electric. The Verge reports: The GSA currently operates several hundred EV chargers across the country, with approximately 8,000 plugs that are available for government-owned EVs as well as federal employees' personally owned vehicles.
The official guidance instructing federal workers to begin the process of shutting down the chargers will be announced internally next week, according to a source with knowledge of the plans. Some regional offices have been told to start taking their chargers offline, according to an email viewed by The Verge. "As GSA has worked to align with the current administration, we have received direction that all GSA owned charging stations are not mission critical," the email reads.
The GSA is working on the timing of canceling current network contracts that keep the EV chargers operational. Once those contracts are canceled, the stations will be taken out of service and "turned off at the breaker," the email reads. Other chargers will be turned off starting next week. "Neither Government Owned Vehicles nor Privately Owned Vehicles will be able to charge at these charging stations once they're out of service," it concludes.
The official guidance instructing federal workers to begin the process of shutting down the chargers will be announced internally next week, according to a source with knowledge of the plans. Some regional offices have been told to start taking their chargers offline, according to an email viewed by The Verge. "As GSA has worked to align with the current administration, we have received direction that all GSA owned charging stations are not mission critical," the email reads.
The GSA is working on the timing of canceling current network contracts that keep the EV chargers operational. Once those contracts are canceled, the stations will be taken out of service and "turned off at the breaker," the email reads. Other chargers will be turned off starting next week. "Neither Government Owned Vehicles nor Privately Owned Vehicles will be able to charge at these charging stations once they're out of service," it concludes.
All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of how much it cost to install these chargers, and how much it saved the government in fuel costs. All of that will be lost like tears in the rain.
Nice to know there's so much concern for how my tax dollars are wasted.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Funny)
Re: All those wasted tax dollars (Score:3)
That comment was not "troll". I hope that moderator has a better day tomorrow.
Re: All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
That comment was not "troll". I hope that moderator has a better day tomorrow.
What these people abusing the moderation system don't realize is that they've just caused the rest of us to adjust our thresholds to show everything anyway. I don't want posts hidden because I might not agree with the political lean of the poster; I'd rather hit reply and throw in my $0.02.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been on Slashdot since the beginning and I have never been offered moderation features, so, whatever.
Re: All those wasted tax dollars (Score:3)
Find the metamod page, do it once in a while. Don't abuse it. /metamod.pl or something.
It's how this site was meant to operate, how we're supposed to mitigate bad actors. The mod points are still random and I don't know what determines if you get five or fifteen, but if you participate you get mod points.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of how much it cost to install these chargers, and how much it saved the government in fuel costs. All of that will be lost like tears in the rain.
Nice to know there's so much concern for how my tax dollars are wasted.
There were only " several hundred EV chargers across the country". They were planning to install many more. So maybe it's cheaper to halt the project. If they want chargers in the parking lots maybe they can offer a contract to Electrify America to own and operate them.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want chargers in the parking lots maybe they can offer a contract to Electrify America to own and operate them.
Is Electrify America a sufficient campaign donor? Prices are going up. Inflation.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
A certain rival sure was. Do they still get subsidies for building out their private network since their connector is now a standard?
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like watching Chairman Mao redirect agricultural output to smelting homestyle pot metal to drive up "production" figures.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything to pump up the estimated number of dollars "saved."
Whilst also ignoring spending that will be required to compensate for that "savings".
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably he must have calculated that having Trump remove EV chargers and subsidies must benefit Tesla and hurt his rivals, otherwise he wouldn't have allowed him to do it.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon Musk likes vandalizing things. Twitter was the practice run for his real goal... the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I still run across people who honestly believe Twitter is doing great and that Musk saved it.
Re: All those wasted tax dollars (Score:4, Informative)
The content quality has dropped dramatically. I managed, without a lot of effort, to curate a decent feed. A few things slipped in here and there, but they weren't that hard to address. I still have an account only because Twitter is still useful for the moment to find information as it unfolds, though BlueSky is starting to catch up. On the rare occasion that I open it, I see a flood of trash content that would not have been permitted at the same volume pre-Musk.
Re: (Score:3)
Advertising revenue has dropped, apparently. It's hard to really tell since data is scarce. X Corp is a private company, everything is secret, sometimes Musk says things but he's not trustworthy and speaks out of turn and without facts (and has been sued precisely for jabbering off to influence stock prices). But last reports still seem to imply advertisers aren't as fond of X as they were of Twitter. Like many of his companies, the reports are that he micromanages too much, despite not knowing how the b
It's about making room (Score:5, Informative)
Fun fact if you live in a rural community you're about to lose your hospital. That's because about a quarter of that hospital's revenue comes from Medicaid. Without that money the hospital shuts down. I hope you like driving 60 miles into town while trying to survive a heart attack...
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt they're really saving much money over this. It's just an ideological win for team red in their war against the so-called "EV mandate" windmill.
Re: (Score:2)
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money!
Re:It's about making room (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about optics. They crow about saving $50 million here and $100 million there, but that's just today and doesn't look at where that money went and what the loss will mean. And it ultimately means very little because those just don't amount to much. Saving $50 million a day comes out to about $18 billion a year.
They can't cut enough from the budget without crashing not just the US economy but the global economy, and then even the wealthy will have nothing. Musk and others have straight up said they want to cut hundreds of billions in annual spending for each of Social Security and Medicare. That's economic suicide. Social Security largely replaced pensions, and not nearly enough people opened 401(k) or IRA accounts. Social Security spending in 2024 was $1.5 trillion, and the last number I saw was that they were going for $200 billion in cuts, or about 13%. That will utterly ruin millions of retirees, many of whom are just barely hanging on. They're going to say that it's the only way to save Social Security, when a much better way is just to remove the cap on Social Security wages. But tax reduction and caps have gone from a solution to a mantra to a religion among some people, so it doesn't get considered.
I lean conservative. I am something of a budget hawk, and I know there is pointless spending. My views started when I was at a public library around eighth grade and was looking through a printed copy of the US budget when I was supposed to be doing actual studying. I saw a budget item for $50,000 to make Eisenhower's birthday more well-known. But I've also come to understand that the waste levels that people think are there largely aren't. They don't understand how small NASA's budget is, or USAID's budget is. They don't understand that there is a corps of people who work to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse, and that these people bust their asses. They don't understand that there are long-term consequences for slashing spending.
You mention hospitals, but Texas has sued the federal government to overturn mandated spending on 504 programs that go to help integrate kids with disabilities and ensure they get a good education and not whatever they can scrounge together. I would like to think that the suit won't succeed (I think Roberts and Barrett, at least, would not nix them), but if Trump somehow eliminates the Department of Education, it all becomes moot anyway. It would affect one of my kids who has ASD and ADHD and the other who is temporarily in a wheelchair due to a degenerative bone disease (hopefully done in another year), but I also think about one of his schoolmates who has severe cerebral palsy, will never not be in a wheelchair, and "speaks" through a communication board. His parents saw ours in his wheelchair at a summer open house and asked nervously about our experiences. We were able to talk about how good the school had been, how they worked with us and got necessary changes made. That was a huge relief to them.
But much of what the school could do came from 504 funding, including the counselors and the training made available to the teachers who have disabled kids in their classrooms. If those kids can't make it through school, they're going to end up dropping out eventually, or in remedial schools that treat them like criminals. They're going to turn into future crime sprees, especially if cuts to Medicaid happen and the ACA is repealed, making it even harder to get them the treatment and medicine they need.
I have communicated to my various representatives my concerns about what is going on, but they're all Republicans, and so far, I don't see much pushback from them. Cornyn, at least, seems to be biding his time and not fully endorsing things, even taking some tepid stances against some things, but Cruz is as cowardly as ever and my local House member hasn't said anything in opposition. I don't think that the Department of Education is going away immediately, but I do expect that the programs authorized by Congress are going to have major problems next school year. I fear for what will happen to my own kids, and millions more students besides.
Re: It's about making room (Score:2)
Silly excuse for the posts he puts out. Any publicity is good publicity. He owns a social media site that by all means wasn't profitable. How does he boost profitability? Have a billionaire act like a nut intentionally or not and have everybody tune in and respond.
Re:Stop Fighting About Who To Tax (Score:4, Informative)
The bigger issue here is that Trump constitutionally cannot get rid of income tax. Congress is explicitly given that power. All the executive can do is tweak some details within parameters that congress has allowed. Of course, Trump doesn't care, he's the King now, he will ignore congress. But that's ok, because the majority in congress is ignoring everything Trump is doing. Possibly they ignore it because if they got involved they might be up against the wall some day.
But there's a congress and courts who are in favor of Trump, he could just ask them nicely to pass some bills now and then. After all it would give Trump more things to sign with his fancy marker.
Re: Stop Fighting About Who To Tax (Score:3)
He can stop collecting it, but a successor could re-instate it. The only way to abolish the income tax would be to amend the constitution, a decidedly non-trivial exercise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And I sincerely hope you are a bot. If not you're getting talking points from a bot and you should stop.
If somebody is calling something the fair tax you can damn well bet it isn't.
It's the FairTax proposal that has been HR25 in the house for about 25 years. It is fair because it is a luxury tax. That is, it not only taxes the poor $0, but also abolishes the income taxes, one of which is the payroll tax that causes a poor person's $10,000 wages for the year to have to break out $1,530 to send to Washington in the form of payroll tax. With the FairTax, there is no payroll tax, as well as no personal, corporate, capital gains, gift, self-employment, alternative minimum, estate, etc
Re: (Score:2)
" just about everything relies on overseas-sourced components at some point in the supply chain"
Ponder that a moment. Why do you think that is? I'll tell you, it is because the overseas-produced item is cheaper. With tariffs, it wouldn't be. And producers would replace it with a domestically produced item. That's what we want.
Re: Stop Fighting About Who To Tax (Score:3)
And so everything will be more expensive at the point of sale. Great plan!
Re: Stop Fighting About Who To Tax (Score:3)
Except when the shift is to local manufacturing, suddenly your tariffs go down a lot and you will eventually need your income tax again.
Re: Stop Fighting About Who To Tax (Score:3)
The U.S. existed longer without a federal income tax (137 years) than with it (112 years), but the gap is closing.
Before the federal income tax, the government primarily raised revenue through tariffs, excise taxes, and land sales:
1. Tariffs (Import Duties) â" The federal government relied heavily on tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods. These were a major source of revenue throughout the 19th century and helped protect domestic industries.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal employee salaries make up 5% of the budget making this all theater for the dim witted. Never thought I would see the day when republicans are cheering for higher unemployment numbers. If Biden authored an executive order stating that only he and the attorney general can say what is legal there would have been an impeachment hearing within the hour.
Its not just salaries ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Federal employee salaries make up 5% of the budget ...
It's not just their salaries. There are the costs and inefficiencies that their work would generate.
For example the person who decided that federal retiree paperwork needs to literally be paper and stored in a salt mine. Imagine the savings if the person who came up with that idea had been fired, and whoever liked the idea and authorized the project.
As a history nerd, I can almost accept the idea of all the WW2 era paperwork being salt mined (Sadly a large amount of personnel records were lost to a fi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> I'd love to hear the rationalization for that.
Oh that's easy; They don't do it at all. Administrative records are typically only kept for three years unless there's good reason to keep them longer (e.g. they are determined to have historical significance... like, say, WW2 documents maybe?). Employee related records are destroyed after 2 or 3 years [archives.gov] unless there's good reason to hold on to them.
Turns out you're bitching about a problem that doesn't even exist. Good job; there's a bright future in DOGE fo
Federal records really stored in an old mine (Score:2)
> I'd love to hear the rationalization for that.
Oh that's easy; They don't do it at all.
Guess again.
"Federal retirements really are sorted by hand in an old mine."
"... In a rural part of western Pennsylvania, about 230 feet underground, sit hundreds of federal workers whose job it is to process thousands of applications every month. They work for the Office of Personnel Management's Retirement Operation Center in Boyers, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles north of Pittsburgh."
"... Since the 1970s, Office of Personnel Management employees have worked to process increasing amounts of retirement f
Re:Federal records really stored in an old mine (Score:5, Interesting)
So who do you think is a better authority on this subject;
Elon Musk, who has demonstrated to have zero understanding of anything and consistently lies about the things he does not understand, and a lazy-ass reporter who apparently couldn't find or be bothered to check if there was any information at all newer than 2016,
or
The published guidelines of the National Archives that very plainly state employee and other administrative records are only kept for 2 to 3 years. Retaining employee records for a few years is something literally every legitimate business does, by the way.
And while you're racking your brain trying to solve this quandary, also keep in mind that nowhere has it been demonstrated that these sorts of records are actually stored on paper in the old mines (which are limestone, not salt, but I guess even basic details don't matter much to you do they?) because, again, the only source we have for this claim is Elon Musk. The USAToday article doesn't actually probe that claim.
Meanwhile, OPM absolutely does create and maintain digital personnel records. I wonder what those might be used for? *thinking*
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, great. Take a report from 10 years ago, republish it, and claim ...
Actually the claim is this has been going on since the 1970s, rebutting the poster above saying its not happening.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet when Republicans had majority power they have never downsized agencies or attempted to repeal their own bills that created the agencies.
I think one reason the Republican majority is sitting back and letting Trump get away with breaking all the laws is so that they have culpable deniability when their constituents ask where all their social security, medicare, medicaid, and foreign markets went.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet when Republicans had majority power they have never downsized agencies or attempted to repeal their own bills that created the agencies.
So you are arguing that Trump is doing a better job than past administrations?
FYI. Clinton/Gore attempted to reduced waste and downsize the government and had limited success. Republican support via the House of Representatives helped them do so. Democratic members of Congress were more protective of the bureaucracy than the Republican members.
Re:Its not just salaries ... (Score:4, Informative)
No, because the executive has no authority to downsize agencies. He's doing worse because he breaking laws. If we want to save money it must be done by congress.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because the executive has no authority to downsize agencies. He's doing worse because he breaking laws. If we want to save money it must be done by congress.
After downsizing an agency, the budget requested from Congress will be lower.
These agencies are in the executive branch of government, its the President who gets to set the policies and staffing levels necessary to execute the mission of the agency defined by law.
Also, Congress does not necessarily specify the details of the spending. They provide a bulk amount for a general goal and let the administrator of the agency figure out the details of spending that money on unspecified projects in unspecifie
Re:Its not just salaries ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If congress creates an agency, the executive cannot disband it. Period. That includes the CFPB. If congress says to spend $x, then they have to spend $x even if the president does not want to. I remember not too long ago when congress gave more money to the military than they asked for, they objected, but still got the money.
UNLESS, they declare that this is a coup and all laws are null and void, which they have not done. Yes, I understand the MAGA mentality that they WANT this to happen, but wanting something to happen does not nullify laws. LAWS ARE IMPORTANT. THE CONSTITUTION IS IMPORTANT. If the president does not like this then the president should urge congress to change the laws or start the creation of a new amendment. No shortcuts are allowed, and neither is coming into office and ruling by decree. Trump has been committing impeachable acts since the very first day in office, even if congress is sitting back and letting him do it. These are not activist judges who are stopping him, these are judges who are following the laws as laid out by congress.
I'm very sorry that so many Americans think that laws are optional and are only valid when convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
If congress creates an agency, the executive cannot disband it. Period.
That may be true, we'll ultimately have to have the Supreme Court determine where the precise line is in that regard. Again, the President may have complete freedom in determining what staffing level is necessary to fulfill the legally defined role of the agency.
Similarly, where Congress provides a bulk fund for a department administrator to decide how to spend, the President may have complete freedom with respect to oversight in that administrator's decisions. The agency being under executive branch con
Re: Its not just salaries ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The government is not like a house though. There are LAWS on the books that have been passed and signed by the executive stating rules about the budget (and whether federal workers can be fired, agencies dismantled, etc). The laws showed up because of Nixon. Congress was absolutely fed up with the power grab Nixon made, both democrats and republicans, and passed laws on this to try and limit the power. So there is now the Impoundment Control Act regarding how the president can ignore spending.
Before Nixon's shenanigans, presidential impoundment was widely accepted and occasionally practiced. But times change, and the law with it. Congress has the power of the purse, not the president.
Now Trump says the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional - but remember Trump is not a constitutional law expert, or an expert in anything frankly beyond the art of the con. His own supreme court nominee Kavanaugh has said that a president doesn't have the power to ignore spending laws. It is not up to the president anyway to decide what is or is not constitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
You sort of spell out the right way to do it.
Work it out for the next budget (that's about to come).
The wrong way is to break faith in the government and cut what's already been appropriated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If bypassing the law to get shit done counts as a better job, then yes, Trump is doing a better job.
I'd argue that executive and legislative working together is built into the constitution, and breaking all that counts as not for Ng a better job.
But if you think the constitution and law is a hindrance that should be ignored, then Trump is one of the first to figure it out (well Jackson figured it out too...).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This all despite multiple expensive attempts over the years at some form of automation, the Post reported. As of 2014, multiple administrations had already spent at least $100 million over 30 years in automating efforts.
Yup, brainectomy, as I said. It's not that the government does not want to automate it, it's because the retirement processing is complicated. I wonder how many billions in claims are going to be lost once lawsuits from retirees hit the government.
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of how much it cost to install these chargers, and how much it saved the government in fuel costs. ... Nice to know there's so much concern for how my tax dollars are wasted.
Agreed. While I could understand not installing any new chargers and not purchasing any new EVs, disabling / mothballing / selling the existing ones already purchased seems, putting it nicely, wasteful. And I can't imagine that any "savings" will offset the cost of going back to using fossil-fuel vehicles, at this point anyway. The only plausible reason for this is spite for all things Biden. I also have trouble imagining that this anti-EV position is popular with the real President, Elon ... /snark :-)
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
I also have trouble imagining that this anti-EV position is popular with the real President, Elon
On the contrary, he owns his own network of chargers. These ones competed with him. It's a win all around.
Re: (Score:2)
I also have trouble imagining that this anti-EV position is popular with the real President, Elon
On the contrary, he owns his own network of chargers. These ones competed with him. It's a win all around.
Normally I'd agree, but how many of his chargers are installed *at* government build sites? If it's none, then that argument doesn't work here.
Re: (Score:2)
I also have trouble imagining that this anti-EV position is popular with the real President, Elon
On the contrary, he owns his own network of chargers. These ones competed with him. It's a win all around.
Normally I'd agree, but how many of his chargers are installed *at* government build sites? If it's none, then that argument doesn't work here.
Sure it does. Those EVs both the personally-owned ones and the ones the government is going to sell off to become personally-owned, will need to charge somewhere (when they can't charge at home, of course), and Tesla's network is everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Normally I'd agree, but how many of his chargers are installed *at* government build sites? If it's none, then that argument doesn't work here.
False. Superchargers are not destination chargers. If destination chargers are unavailable then superchargers will *have* to be used in transit (because you can't use a L2 destination charger in transit, it's too slow to be practical).
I'm not saying that's the conspiracy here, I'm just saying your post logically ignores how people charge their cars. I can give the perfect personal example. I had no charger at home. I used to charge once per week at an 150kW fast charger on the way to work. Now fast forward
Re:All those wasted tax dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of how much it cost to install these chargers, and how much it saved the government in fuel costs.
Not to mention the depreciation of the vehicles. This makes no sense at all, which is why it doesn't surprise me Trump/Musk are doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
> and how much it saved the government in fuel costs
Do we know this?
It would be just like government to sign a conteact with "a vendor" to pay 10x the electric rate for charging.
Without the details it's hard to say whether it's stupid or undoing stupid.
I'll watch the auction sites for $1200 electric minivans, though.
Re: All those wasted tax dollars (Score:2)
But they are *not* mission critical.
Now if they were armored Teslas...
Re: (Score:2)
Think of where Trump has his wallet.
Of course Musk want every charger to be a Tesla charger so he can make more money because then he can charge non-Tesla cars more than Tesla cars for charging.
Tomorrow (Score:3, Funny)
It’s announced that all the chargers will be converted to Tesla.
Re: Tomorrow (Score:2)
Old (Score:2)
No Chargers But Musks? (Score:2)
Re:No Chargers But Musks? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's going on is bullshit, and no one is doing anything.
Republicans control the White House, Congress (House *and* Senate) and ostensibly 6/9 of SCOTUS and they all either agree with Trump (and Musk) or are too cowardly to go against them. Democrats in office can only do so much to resist. Anything else is up to the electorate, which is slower to react, though that may be coming.
Republican Congressman Faces Backlash at Town Hall Furious at Trump [newrepublic.com] (Feb 21, 2025) -- Google: gop booed town hall [google.com]:
Representative Rich McCormick (R-GA), who represents a deep-red Trump district, was booed at his own town hall. ... as the town hall booed him. Another pressed McCormick on what he’ll do to “rein in the megalomaniac in the White House.”
And Warning signs for Trump in new polling [politico.com] (Feb 20, 2025) notes that, according to several polls (Gallup, Post-Ipsos, etc...) his poll numbers are now lower -- and underwater -- compared to Inauguration Day, at about 46% Approve to 53% Disapprove, -- contrary to Trump's made up number of 70-80% approval. Google: trump polls underwater details [google.com]
Re:No Chargers But Musks? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see if they will also try and get rid of term limits this term, so trump can become a dictator for life, or if they will wait so they can continue their agenda without him.
Re: (Score:3)
No argument on your first point.
It will be interesting to see if they will also try and get rid of term limits this term, so trump can become a dictator for life,
I think that'll be more difficult as it would require changing the Constitution and, even though some suck-up Republican Congressman (okay, redundant) has written up a bill to do that, practically (I don't think) it could be done before Trump left office, as it would require 2/3 of Congress and then 3/4 (38) of states to ratify it. Currently, only 23 states are completely controlled by Republicans (Governor, House, Senate). Even if that happened, Trump will 82 at the end
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The loophole is that he can run for Vice-President and the President can resign or fall out a window and he becomes President legally.
Re: (Score:3)
The loophole is that he can run for Vice-President and the President can resign or fall out a window and he becomes President legally.
Wikipedia notes [wikipedia.org] that the interaction of the 22nd and 12th Amendments is untested, so that loophole isn't guaranteed, though with the current makeup of SCOTUS ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
they probably have more chance of removing natural born citizen requirement so musk can run.
Re: (Score:3)
im thinking they are going to use DOGE to gather enough data on citizens to do voter fraud on a massive scale
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly incorrect there. Musk owns the white house.
No argument from me. Trump is just a Muppet with a Sharpie ...
(He spent 10 of his first 31 days as President golfing at his properties. Obviously, not a busy guy.)
Reasonable to stop buying new ones, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reasonable to stop buying new ones, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes at least as much sense at North Carolina (lest anyone see the North part and forget that it's in the South) attempting to allocate public money to remove public EV chargers, and to prohibit private business owners installing their own unless they install free gas pumps as well.
I don't know if that stupid bill ever passed, but it was proposed.
Re: Reasonable to stop buying new ones, but (Score:2)
The chargers still require (regular) maintenance, and depending on their condition you could probably recoup some of their cost via an auction.
Re:Reasonable to stop buying new ones, but (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone one else reminded of Reagan ripping out the solar panels Carter put on the White House?
Re: (Score:3)
Reasonable to stop installing new chargers, I suppose, since the program to buy electric vehicles is ending, but what's the point of ripping out the already-installed ones? They're already paid for.
From TFA, it looks like the chargers are ChargePoint L2 chargers. At least according to ChatGPT, the property owner is responsible for the costs of upkeep and maintenance of the EVSE equipment (unless a service contract has been purchased through ChargePoint). From what I've personally experienced at the local Whole Foods with busted ChargePoint chargers, yes, they do break and yes, sometimes the business owner doesn't spend the money to get have them repaired.
I suppose they could've just let the network
Re: (Score:2)
True.
Imagine if we'd spent a few billion on a wall and then didn't build most of it but had a zillion tons of raw materials sitting at the border for almost 4 years and then tried to sell it all off at pennies on the dollar after losing an election.
No one would ever be that wasteful or petty.
Didn't Mexico pay for that anyway?
I thought Trump and Musk had a plan (Score:3)
Part of a bigger game they were playing.
But now it is very plain that there is no bigger game.
EVs, wind turbines, the FBI appointee, Russia, Ukraine, etc etc etc
They are simply vindictive and stupid.
The world is fucked.
WE. TOLD. YOU. SO. (Score:5, Interesting)
WHY THE FUCK DID YOU THINK THAT!?
What evidence did you have that was the case? What, during his previous four years, led you to believe that fucking slob had any kind of plan, other than willful infliction of gratuitious cruelty? Who the fuck were you listening to? Why!? And why did you believe them?
Even before he descended that tacky golden escalator in 2015 to the thunderous cheers of paid extras (yes, all those people were hired from a local background actor casting agency), it's been obvious for decades that, at best, he's never been more than a ridiculous fool with too much money. And it absolutely boggles my mind that anyone, with easy, unobstructed access to the same set of facts -- all of which were always laying out in plain sight -- could possibly arrive at any other conclusion.
Since the illusions seem to finally be falling from your eyes, your may care to take this opportunity to re-examine your sources, and some of the cultural "truths" you've left unexamined.
You might also want to read up on German history circa 1933 - 1945, 'cause it looks like we're in for a do-over. I mean, we know how this story's going to end -- the only remaining question is how many more people will needlessly suffer and die before we get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was a laughing stock since the 80s. I'm from the west coast and I certainly heard all about him even though he was mostly famous in New York. Trump was everywhere, he's a big self promoter. The talk show circuit, move cameos, full page ads in the papers, really really creepy photos of himself in a bathrobe, etc. The only reason he got The Apprentice gig was because he was a well known name. But I suspect this was an American thing, other countries probably not so much enamored of American celebri
Re: (Score:3)
Then you clearly have not read anything substantive about Musk.
He's a dummy.
Don't feel too bad about it; I was taken in, too -- mostly because I wasn't paying close attention, and fell into the same mental trap that MovieBob describes at the end of his video on the man. [youtu.be] (For a more grounded, less clickbaity profile of the man, just look up his history in the early days of Zip2/PayPal and why even Peter Thiel eventually had to
Re: (Score:2)
> Nope, the rest of the world is just fine.
At least Palestine and Ukraine disagree.
Re: I thought Trump and Musk had a plan (Score:2)
They're just fine when HIV mounts a resurgence in Africa because the drugs needed to keep it in check are paused? Europe is just fine when Trump hands Ukraine to Putin? Taiwan is just fine when China sees what Putin got away with?
I'm not so sure about that
Re: (Score:2)
Can Taiwan hold of China by itself? Can Europe beat Russia by themselves? What's to stop the USA taking over or making client States of the Americas?
We've been here before, the Great Powers get together and split up the world. Eventually one of the Powers gets more greedy and, well you can guess.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm more worried that the USA is now say it is ok for big countries to invade and annex smaller countries and thinks it should get in on the action.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more worried that the USA is now say it is ok for big countries to invade and annex smaller countries and thinks it should get in on the action.
Along with deals where they don't stop each other as long as they stay in their area.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the rest of the world is just fine.
First their is a major recession or depression, then there is war, a war which grows. Dictators love expanding their territory, usually by first making deals with the other dictators, then one of the dictators stabs another in the back. Trump, or his Grand Vizar are already dealing with Putin on who gets what, Xi will be invited to the talks eventually..
Consistent with (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no, Trusk turned off 5% of the EV chargers in the US. He’ll probably turn them right back on again as soon social media attention turns to something else (aka in about 12 hours). And selling off the government EVs is most definitely NOT gonna happen. That’s real hardware. The government paid good money for them and they were purchased with an expected 25 year operational life.
When you hear any announcement from the current admin, you should mentally picture a sweaty, oiled-up professional wrestler, in full spandex, shouting it to a screaming crowd from the middle of a ring. This is not serious governance. This is performance/entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
One angry mob, to go. (Score:2)
The government is buying bullet-proof Teslas to protect the GOP plutocracy and removing the infrastructure those vehicles need to operate.
Most things are vulnerable to fire. This is a gift-horse for the angry mob. Now, the USA just needs an angry mob.
GSA EV firesale? (Score:2)
The full picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that most government fleet vehicles aren’t used for commuting to work, but rather in the course of their jobs. Examples are law enforcement, postal delivery, etc - while the vehicles may spend part of the workday in the fleet parking lot, much of the time they will be out in the community.
I don’t know offhand how many EV’s the government actually has in operation; for example, under Biden the Post Office was in the process of replacing their fleet of vehicles, many of which were g
Cool story bro (Score:2)
It's a pretty obvious hat-tip to the anti-environment conservative nazi party fans.
In two years when FOX News has forgotten about it, they'll bring the EVs back as an example of Trump showing leadership in bringing new jobs for the green energy sector and claim it as a win for Trump improving the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm Really OK with It (Score:5, Informative)
Why was I paying to charge people's private vehicles?
You weren't, the private users were paying for the actual electricity used (as the GSA was paying for the electricity used for their vehicles).
Re: (Score:2)
Did you eat a lot of lead paint chips as a child?
Re: (Score:2)
If the US electrical grid can't handle it, it will be because of AI and crypto-currency soaking up amazing amounts of electricity, not vehicles, at least no where near now. Maybe is 3 - 5 year. But crypto and AI are hogging amazing KwH right now, and accelerating rapidly.
Many gov't installations have their own gasoline tanks and diesel tanks and fuel their own vehicles to avoid paying someone else at a gas pump, not to mention wasting the time to do so. What's the difference with having EV chargers for
Re: Did government build gas stations (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From this https://www.whatcar.com/best/s... [whatcar.com] it looks like the UK is spoilt for choice with several models from £18K to £23K. Another article show a £7695 model but it has significant limits. There is a proper model from £14,995 but it sounds a bit crappy. Fro