[DeRock]

Its a BS quote, the deck was financially stacked against EV procurement from the start. For example:

1. EV proposals had to account for a 100% EV fleet. The small percentage of rural routes where this was difficult created a long tail of costs. There's no reason why this couldn't have been scaled down to a more reasonable 90% of routes (or whatever the breakdown happens to be).

2. TCO calculations were inadequate. The real benefit of EVs come from operating costs (much lower electricity costs compared to gas, much lower maintenance). Interest rates are so low right now, there would have been some way to capitalize the initial purchases, if the USPS leadership had appetite.

[bryanlarsen]

Yes, there's no way that the EV version should cost $30k more than the ICE version. It's possible to buy a whole EV for that price. It's not like you need a large battery to cover a 45 mile rural route.

[tingletech]

weird, rural route carriers are independent contractors who provide their own vehicles, or at least that is how it used to work.

[jjtheblunt]

still works that way even in the north end of the phoenix metro area in the foothills of the mountains, where we live. and this is not like the boonies, just the edge of suburbia abutted with mountains.

[zerocrates]

Could be just longer routes in rural areas that caused the effect in the analysis rather than necessarily actual designated "rural routes."

[throwthere]

I don’t now why USPS what evaluate this on any other yard stick other than cost. It’s really hard to know exactly what their numbers look like but I have a hard time believing that their leadership is backwards etc like the epa rep would want everyone to believe. On the other hand I guess this could be a gambit for federal money. Either way it’d be great to see public thorough analysis.