Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Sparks

Trump Thinks EV Charging Will Cost $3 Trillion — Which Is Incorrect

Nor will charging infrastructure “bankrupt” the U.S.

Electric car charging.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Shortly after being fined $350 million (more than $450 million, including interest) over fraudulent business practices and then booed at Sneaker Con, former President Donald Trump traveled to Waterford, Michigan, where he said some incorrect things about electric vehicles.

Even by Trump’s recent standards, Saturday’s Waterford rally was a bit kooky. During his nearly hour-and-a-half-long speech, the former president claimed that his opponents are calling him a whale (“I don’t know if they meant a whale from the standpoint of being a little heavy, or a whale because I got a lot of money”) and, improbably, claimed not to have known what the word “indictment” meant.

There were fewer surprises, however, for those who’ve been following Trump’s spreading of climate misinformation on the campaign trail. The rally included some of Trump’s favorite hits against EVs, including that they supposedly “don’t go far,” that they’ll eliminate American jobs, and that they’ll make for worse tanks if the Army electrifies them. But Trump also added a new claim to his list of complaints: “If we build all the charging booths that are necessary, our country would go bankrupt,” he said. “It would cost like $3 trillion. It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.”

Trump has disparaged charging infrastructure before, and while there are valid concerns about the Biden administration’s high-speed electric vehicle push, Trump’s math in Waterford was more than a little off. For one thing, he almost certainly got the “$3 trillion” price tag from the total cost of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which aims to address significantly more than just the country’s EV-charging infrastructure. In fact, BIL earmarks a comparatively small $7.5 billion for the development of 500,000 public charging stations.

But what would it cost to build and operate all the charging booths necessary to meet the current federal target of zero-emission cars making up half of new vehicle sales by 2030?

Others have already crunched the numbers. In a 2022 report, McKinsey & Company estimated that the U.S. will need “1.2 million public EV chargers and 28 million private EV chargers” by 2030 to meet the zero-emission sales goals. Those public chargers would cost about $38 billion, including the hardware, planning, and installation. Wrap in the cost to residences, workplaces, and depots, and the total cost of public and private charging installation approaches $97 billion.

Naturally, there is some disagreement about those numbers. In a separate analysis, AlixPartners, a consulting firm, found that it would take $50 billion to build the charging infrastructure to meet the 2030 zero-emission vehicle goal in the U.S., and $300 billion worldwide.

There are 1,000 billions in a trillion, though, so whatever way you cut it, it certainly would not cost the U.S. “$3 trillion” to build enough charging stations to accommodate zero-emission vehicles. Nor would doing so“bankrupt” America, even if we were allocating vastly more than the current $7.5 billion that is already set aside. By comparison, the annual budget of the U.S. Space Force alone is $30 billion.

Then again — to be fair — maybe there are some other reasons bankruptcy is at the top of Trump’s mind.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Sparks

Solar for All May Be on the Chopping Block After All

The $7 billion program had been the only part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not targeted for elimination by the Trump administration.

The EPA blocking solar power.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to cancel grants awarded from the $7 billion Solar for All program, the final surviving grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, by the end of this week, The New York Times is reporting. Two sources also told the same to Heatmap.

Solar for All awarded funds to 60 nonprofits, tribes, state energy offices, and municipalities to deliver the benefits of solar energy — namely, utility bill savings — to low-income communities. Some of the programs are focused on rooftop solar, while others are building community solar, which enable residents that don’t own their homes to access cheaper power.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Sparks

Grassley Holds Up Trump Treasury Nominees to Protect Renewables Development

Along with Senator John Curtis of Utah, the Iowa senator is aiming to preserve the definition of “begin construction” as it applies to tax credits.

John Curtis and Charles Grassley.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley wants “begin construction” to mean what it means.

To that end, Grassley has placed a “hold” on three nominees to the Treasury Department, the agency tasked with writing the rules and guidance for implementing the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, many of which depend on that all-important definition.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Sparks

Interior Order Chokes Off Permits for Solar and Wind on Federal Lands

The department creates a seemingly impossible new permitting criteria for renewable energy.

Doug Burgum.
John McDonnell/Getty Images

The Interior Department released a new secretarial order Friday saying it may no longer issue any permits to a solar or wind project on federal lands unless the agency believes it will generate as much energy per acre as a coal, gas, or nuclear power plant.

Hypothetically, this could kill off any solar or wind project going through permitting that is sited on federal lands, because these facilities would technically be less energy dense than coal, gas, and nuclear plants. This is irrespective of the potential benefits solar and wind may have for the environment or reducing carbon emissions – none of which are mentioned in the order.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow