A modern engine with mild electrification will make a gigantic difference in the USPS fuel use and emissions profile. The current Long Life Vehicle (LLV) fleet built '87-'94 uses the ancient 2.5L Iron Duke engine, really a commercially non-viable engine even then.

Using the Mahindra version as an example -- with the new (and completely unrelated) GM 2.5L e-assist -- the old 9mpg metric for the LLV will rise by at least 4-5mpg. So you get a 50% reduction in fuel use (and by extension CO2), along with >80% drop in unburned CHO and NOx, for an affordable price and no plugs. These improvements are good enough to please most taxpayers.

The price target for the NGDV is stated as "$25-35k each". A pure EV won't fit in this target, and the infrastructure cost, while not really that huge, isn't trivial. EVSEs for over 100,000 vehicles are not in the budget. My math says it's not likely that a strong hybrid will make the cut, but of course that would be the best compromise.

Above all, there's no assurance that the project will even happen.

(IMO the "right" choice would be an plug-in REx architecture like that proposed by VT Hackney and Workhorse. WAAAAY too expensive.)

On average each vehicle currently uses about 900 gallons per year but according to Herman a modern ice vehicle might use say 630 gallons so at $3 per gallon the fuel cost is say $1900 while the electricity costs for a comparable EV would be say $600. That gives a savings of $1300/year on energy and perhaps another 100-200 on maintenance like oil changes and brake service. So based on those metrics there could be savings of around $15,000. After 10 years the batteries may need replacement but by then one would expect lower cost, improved batteries, whereas an ICE choice might be obsolete by 2030 (especially for applications like USPS delivery). Of course traditional style USPS delivery might be obsolete by 2030 as well. I'd think a $15 - 20,000 premium for a EV might be reasonable so long as it can do the job.

The desireability of BEVs notwithstanding, there is a procurement spec for the vehicle and a budget line item authorization associated with that. If a lower-priced vehicle that meets the spec can be selected it will be; changing the selection criteria and project budget to pick something else would endanger the likelihood of continuation and eventual production launch. And the letter from concerned taxpayers carries zero weight.

Gary, I don't disagree with your math, but it doesn't account for cost of money, which is not zero. $15k of savings over ten years doesn't come close to "paying" for $10-15k up front. And don't forget infrastucture. Also, the idea that the truck might be obsolete by 2030 is refuted by the LLV. The median age for these old dogs is 26, and most of them are on the road still. The plan is that the last NGDV built in ~2024 will be in service in 2045 (if not longer).

@CalgaryGary

Your numbers are legit but not applicable. Re-read the article. 1.3 billion miles, 200K vehicles. That works out to a average of less than 21 miles per work day....and that is an arithmetic average. Because a small number of vehicles contribute a disproportionate amount of miles the median is actually significantly lower. The majority of postal routes do not exceed 15 miles!!

My carrier says in 15 years she has never had a load that was as much as 200 Lbs. Never! So we're talking about light loads and low speed stop and go city miles. Conservatively they should be able to get 5 miles / kWhr meaning the battery would not need to be large.
A GEM eM 1400 LSV modified to be enclosed and with a custom box should be doable for a price around 15K. No need to squander billions on ICEVs initially that may cost additional hundreds of millions of annually.

The RFP was probably written to exclude cost effective solutions. This is the type of boondoggle that should be investigated.

Even if a were famous and rich i will still own and drive my actual car, a gas Hyundai accent 6 speeds 2014. This is not taste or budget, this is applied science, is it clear now ?