Dear Postmaster General DeJoy:
We appreciate the statement you made that purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) makes "good sense from both an operational and financial perspective" when you announced the United States Postal Service's (USPS) first purchase of 50,000 Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDVs). While it is an improvement that your purchase of NGDVs will be 20 percent EVs, we ask that you significantly increase the percentage of EVs that you purchase to replace the USPS fleet.
USPS accounts for roughly one-third of the federal fleet and the actions that USPS takes will have a significant impact on whether the United States does its share to combat climate chaos. While investing in a minimum of 20 percent electric postal vehicles is an improvement, the USPS must do more. Not only does USPS's current plan to invest in predominantly fossil fuel powered vehicles endanger public health and the environment, the decision is also being made at a time when companies like Federal Express (FedEx) and United Parcel Service (UPS) are increasingly moving towards electric vehicles for economic reasons. We therefore ask that you further explain to us USPS's decision.
The USPS has repeatedly stated that its decision to replace the majority of its fleet with internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is based on an analysis of USPS's existing financial condition and its determination that procuring ICEVs is more cost-effective than procuring EVs.
Your statements about the costs of procuring ICEVs over EVs contradict recent reports on the cost-effectiveness of purchasing EVs, including one report that found USPS could save taxpayers $4.3 billion over the fleet's lifetime by using 97 percent electric.
We ask that you provide to Congress:
The cost analysis that USPS used to determine the cost effectiveness of electric vehicles, including any assumptions made about the price of batteries, electricity, electric vehicle chargers, and gasoline;
The current cost analysis that USPS will use to place purchase orders for vehicles under the Oshkosh contract and how that analysis differs from the cost analysis USPS used to award the contract;
The cost schedule for the order from Oshkosh Defense to purchase 50,000 vehicles with a makeup of 80 percent ICEVs and 20 percent EVs;
The estimated cost schedule for the order from Oshkosh Defense to purchase 50,000 vehicles if the makeup were a minimum of 70 percent EVs;
An overview of how USPS utilized the expertise of the General Services Administration, Department of Energy, and/or the Environmental Protection Agency in the process of developing the Request For Proposal for the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle with a focus on electrifying the fleet and engaged these agencies when developing the cost analysis, and cost schedule for the procurement of USPS ICEVs and EVs;
Any barriers to transitioning to an EV fleet that exist for USPS that do not exist, or do not exist to the same degree, for USPS competitors who are currently purchasing EVs, including all cost factors and assumptions behind USPS's claim that the amount of acceleration and deceleration for USPS trucks makes replacement and maintenance costs for ICEVs cheaper than EVs as well as whether USPS projects any benefits from regenerative breaking for USPS EVs; and
USPS's analysis of the risk of losing business from companies who are making greenhouse gas pledges if USPS's greenhouse gas profile is higher than competitors and how that would impact USPS's financial security.
We ask that you please provide a response within 30 days that addresses the questions above in explaining how USPS arrived at its cost conclusion in light of private sector trends and the increasing cost-effectiveness of EVs over ICEVs.