Louis DeJoy’s Latest Scandal: A Fleet of Gas-Guzzling Mail Trucks

Democrats are calling for the postmaster general to resign over his “antediluvian” choice.

Graeme Jennings/CNP/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Through snow and rain and gloom of night, hundreds of thousands of unsafe, 30-year-old, gas-guzzling mail trucks traverse the streets of our great nation.

The postal fleet is due for an upgrade. But thanks to Postmaster General and major Trump donor Louis DeJoy, you shouldn’t expect an electric mail truck to come whirring down your street anytime soon.

President Biden has called for federal agencies to phase out the use of gas-powered vehicles, but the USPS, an independent agency, isn’t obligated to follow Biden’s guidelines. So DeJoy—who oversaw the removal of 671 mail sorting machines ahead of the 2020 election; implemented operational changes that dramatically slowed down mail service; and reportedly reimbursed employees for donations to GOP campaigns—oversaw an $11.3 billion contract with Oshkosh Defense for 165,000 trucks for the agency. Ninety percent of those would be gas-powered.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a furious letter about the decision, calling the Postal Service’s consideration of climate concerns “seriously deficient” and accusing USPS of awarding $482 million to Oshkosh Defense before initiating an environmental review, in violation of Council on Environmental Quality regulations. 

There was, eventually, an environmental review, which itself was severely flawed. As the Washington Post reported last week:

In its public comments, the EPA questioned why the Postal Service had assumed in its economic and climate study that battery and gasoline prices would remain the same decades from now and overestimated the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by electricity powering plug-in vehicles.

The fleet that DeJoy signed off on would indeed be more fuel-efficient than the ones Seinfeld’s Newman drove in the ’90s—to the tune of 0.4 more miles per gallon. This is a pathetic attempt to cut down gas usage: The current trucks average 8.2 mpg, according to the EPA; the new ones would reach 8.6 mpg.

The USPS, which is more than $200 billion in debt, has blamed its failure to commit to electrifying its fleet on its money woes. “While we can understand why some who are not responsible for the financial sustainability of the Postal Service might prefer that the Postal Service acquire more electric vehicles, the law requires the Postal Service to be self-sufficient,” USPS spokesperson Kimberly Frum said in a statement. The House plans to vote on legislation relieving some of the USPS’s debt in the coming days.

But in buying gas-powered trucks over electric ones, the USPS is mirroring the entire world’s approach to the climate over the past 50 years: solving short-term issues at the expense of long-term economic and environmental improvements. The new gas-guzzling fleet of mail trucks would cause an estimated $900 million in climate damages, according to the EPA. And, despite the USPS’s argument that electrifying the fleet would cost too much money, doing so could save the agency $4.3 billion in the long term, according to one independent analysis.

The inanity of the USPS’s decision-making process isn’t lost on House Democrats. Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), who leads the House subcommittee overseeing the USPS, has called DeJoy’s decision “antediluvian” and urged the postmaster general to resign. The EPA hasn’t brought the dispute to the White House council that mediates interagency conflicts related to climate, but it has issued the USPS a strongly worded letter. Meanwhile, environmental groups are preparing to sue.

It’s unclear whether DeJoy will heed the EPA’s request to halt the purchase of a new fleet of trucks. EPA officials are hopeful that the USPS may still pivot to a more electric fleet in later years, even if it moves forward with the current mostly-gas contract for 2023.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate