The Biden administration just made good on one of its promises to make EV charger funding available to local governments. The Department of Transportation is now accepting applications for its $2.5 billion Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, which will hand out funds to cities, counties, regional governments and tribes to help deploy EV chargers, hydrogen fuel stations and other reduced-emissions systems near their residents.

Half of the program's funding will go to chargers and stations in "publicly accessible" places like parking facilities, parks and schools. The rest will install this equipment in "alternative fuel corridors" along highways to help with long-distance travel. The initial round of funding will make $700 million available, with the rest coming over the program's five-year span. Officials have to apply no later than May 30th.

The initiative is part of President Biden's broader campaign to build 500,000 charging stations by 2030, or about five times as many as there were in early 2022. The money, assigned as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is meant to ensure charging access within 50 miles of someone's location in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. While the effort is intended to spur overall EV adoption, there's an added focus on underserved communities like some urban and rural areas.

A strong charging infrastructure is widely considered vital to successfully transitioning away from combustion engine cars. Existing stations can sometimes be crowded or unreliable, and don't always support the fast charging available with recent EVs. The government funding isn't guaranteed to fix these problems, but should increase the likelihood that you can travel cross-country in an electrified ride.

The Biden administration just made good on one of its promises to make EV charger funding available to local governments. The Department of Transportation is now accepting applications for its $2.5 billion Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program, which will hand out funds to cities, counties, regional governments and tribes to help deploy EV chargers, hydrogen fuel stations and other reduced-emissions systems near their residents.

Half of the program's funding will go to chargers and stations in "publicly accessible" places like parking facilities, parks and schools. The rest will install this equipment in "alternative fuel corridors" along highways to help with long-distance travel. The initial round of funding will make $700 million available, with the rest coming over the program's five-year span. Officials have to apply no later than May 30th.

The initiative is part of President Biden's broader campaign to build 500,000 charging stations by 2030, or about five times as many as there were in early 2022. The money, assigned as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is meant to ensure charging access within 50 miles of someone's location in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. While the effort is intended to spur overall EV adoption, there's an added focus on underserved communities like some urban and rural areas.

A strong charging infrastructure is widely considered vital to successfully transitioning away from combustion engine cars. Existing stations can sometimes be crowded or unreliable, and don't always support the fast charging available with recent EVs. The government funding isn't guaranteed to fix these problems, but should increase the likelihood that you can travel cross-country in an electrified ride.

For the first time, the US government plans to regulate the presence of “forever chemicals” in drinking water. PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are ubiquitous in the modern world. They’re found in many household items, including non-stick Teflon pans and dental floss, and can stay in water and soil for generations. What’s more, PFAS exposure has been linked to a whole host of health problems, including cancer, liver damage, asthma and developmental issues among children.

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposed drinking standard that would require public utilities to monitor drinking water for PFAS contamination and notify the public if the levels of those chemicals exceed the new standard. The proposal calls for classifying Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as individual contaminants that water utilities would be mandated to detect at a level of four parts per trillion. Under an Obama-era recommendation, the agency previously recommend that water contain no more than 70 parts per trillion of PFAS chemicals. The EPA estimates the new guidelines will prevent “thousands” of deaths and “tens of thousands” of illnesses that are attributable to PFAS poisoning.

“EPA’s proposal to establish a national standard for PFAS in drinking water is informed by the best available science, and would help provide states with the guidance they need to make decisions that best protect their communities,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement. “This action has the potential to prevent tens of thousands of PFAS-related illnesses and marks a major step toward safeguarding all our communities from these dangerous contaminants.”

With today’s announcement, the EPA will accept public comment on the proposal for 60 days before it takes effect. A handful of states, including New Jersey, Vermont, Michigan and New York, already regulate the chemicals on their own. That said, PFAS water contamination is a national problem. One 2020 study estimated that as many as 200 million Americans have been exposed to the chemicals through their tap water. More recently, scientists have found polyfluoroalkyl substances in human breast milk.

US regulators have announced that they're taking action to "fully" protect all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), CNBC has reported. The institution is home to a large number of startups and established companies like Roku and Etsy, which will have full access to their funds as of today. At the same time, officials said there will be "no bailouts" and that shareholders and unsecured creditors won't be protected. 

"Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system," the FDIC, Treasury Department and Federal Reserve said in a joint statement. "Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer."

The FDIC took over SVB on Friday following the largest US bank collapse in nearly 15 years. There were concerns that numerous tech startups and companies wouldn't be able to make their payrolls, and Etsy said yesterday that payments to merchants may be delayed. On Friday, Roku announced that it could lose as much as 26 percent of its cash reserves, or more than $487 million, due to the collapse.

On top of SVB, Signature Banks was closed by regulators on the weekend. It's one of the largest banks used by cryptocurrency companies, as the Coinbase exchange, for one, had $240 million in deposits at the bank. In the same joint statement, federal regulators said that "all depositors of this institution will [also] be made whole."

Silvergate, another institution popular with crypto exchanges (and known for purchasing Diem, the ambitious crypto project funded by Facebook), collapsed on March 8th. That marks a run of three key banks with ties to technology firms closing in the space of a week. 

To reassure depositors no doubt nervous over these events, the government said that it will make additional funding available to other eligible institutions. The new program will allow banks to put up treasuries and other safe government securities as collateral in return for central bank loans of up to one year. It's designed to fix a key issue that led to SVB’s failure: unrealized losses on government securities caused by rapidly rising interest rates.

"The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry," the joint statement reads. "Those reforms combined with today's actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors' savings remain safe."

Senators aren't giving up on a bill to safeguard your online data. Hawaii's Brian Schatz and 18 other senators have reintroduced the 2018-era Data Care Act to set higher standards for sensitive info. Companies will need to "reasonably secure" identifying data, including prompt customer notifications for breaches. They also can't use that data in harmful ways, and must ensure third-parties treat any shared data with the same amount of respect.

The measure gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to fine companies that violate the rules, including third parties. States could take their own civil actions, but the FTC could step in.

The senators largely consist of Democrats, including Big Tech critics like Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King also back the potential legislation. The original Data Care Act had the support of 15 Democrats.

There's no guarantee the revived Act will succeed. The original bill never came to a vote after its December 2018 introduction. And while Democrats control the Senate in 2023, the Republicans lead the House. If a vote on an equivalent bill is split along partisan lines in the House, it won't reach the President's desk for approval.

The conditions may be more favorable this time around, however. President Biden has been eager to rein in Big Tech, with a particular focus on limiting the collection and use of data. Meanwhile, both major parties in Congress are increasingly concerned about data privacy and security. The Data Care Act theoretically satisfies these politicians, if just by shifting more of the responsibility to businesses.

It's not just House representatives that want the federal government to ban TikTok. A bipartisan alliance of senators has introduced a bill that would give the Commerce Secretary the authority to ban TikTok and other foreign technology perceived as a national security threat. The would-be law would be limited to tech emerging from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela.

The group is led by senators Mark Warner and John Thune. It includes high-profile politicians from both parties, including Joe Manchin and Mitt Romney.

The move comes just days after the House Foreign Affairs Committee advanced a bill, the Deterring America's Technological Adversaries (DATA) Act, in a partisan vote. A House vote is expected later in March. That measure is more targeted and meant to prevent Americans' data from falling into the hands of the Chinese government. In December, a section of an omnibus spending bill banned TikTok on federal government devices following similar restrictions in multiple states.

In all cases, the concern remains the same. Critics are concerned the Chinese government might use TikTok to collect data on Americans and spread propaganda. TikTok has repeatedly denied cooperation with Chinese officials, and has tried to assuage fears by moving data and traffic to US-based servers. Oracle, which runs the US servers, has been reviewing TikTok's algorithms and moderation systems.

There's no certainty the Senate will pass its bill and reconcile it with a House equivalent. The Commerce Secretary also isn't guaranteed to exercise the power if granted. However, the introduction of the bill adds pressure to TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew as he testifies before the House on March 23rd. He'll be fighting a Congress that's even more determined to limit his company's business.

Gigi Sohn, President Biden's pick to serve as the critical fifth vote on the Federal Communications Commission, is withdrawing from her nomination to the telecom regulator. On Tuesday, Sohn said she recently asked President Biden to appoint someone else to the FCC. The Biden administration originally announced Sohn's nomination in October 2021, only for her to go on to face intense resistance from Republicans and moderate Democrats like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Per The Washington Post, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that, as of Tuesday, the Biden administration did not have news to share on a new nominee.       

"Unfortunately, the American people are the real losers here," Sohn said in a statement. " The FCC deadlock, now over two years long, will remain so for a long time. As someone who has advocated for my entire career for affordable, accessible broadband for every American, it is ironic that the 2-2 FCC will remain sidelined at the most consequential opportunity for broadband in our lifetimes."

Developing...

Biometric technology may make it easy to unlock your phone, but democratic lawmakers have long cautioned against the use of facial recognition and biometrics by law enforcement. Not only have researchers documented instances of racial and gender bias in such systems, false positives have even led to real instances of wrongful arrest. That's why lawmakers have re-introduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Act. This actually marks the third time the bill was introduced to the Senate — despite being introduced in 2020 and 2021, the act was never advanced to a vote.

If passed, the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Act would outright ban any use of facial recognition or biometric surveillance by the federal government unless that use is explicitly approved by an Act of Congress. That approval itself would be pretty limited: It would need to define who was allowed to use biometric surveillance, the exact type of biometric surveillance they would be using and the specific purpose it would be used for. Approval would also have the burden of further restrictions, such as adhering to minimum accuracy rates that would hopefully avoid false positives in the rare instances when use of the technology is approved.

The bill also hopes to encourage local and state governments to follow its lead, including a clause that would tie some federal funding for local law enforcement to complying with a "substantially similar" ban on facial recognition and biometrics.

While the bill hasn't had much luck making it to the floor of either chamber of congress, some states and local governments have been banning facial recognition technology on their own. In 2020, Portland Oregon put strict guardrails on the use of facial recognition technology. New York State and Massachusetts have also put restrictions on the use of biometrics. Even the IRS walked back plans to use facial recognition for identity verification purposes.

That sounds encouraging for the re-introduced bill, but that momentum isn't universal: Law enforcement still sees biometrics as a useful tool for investigating crime, and the TSA has been testing systems that compare travelers to the photo on their passport or driver's license.

Chipmakers hoping to tap into the Biden administration’s $39 billion semiconductor manufacturing subsidy program will need to sign agreements promising they won’t expand production capacity in China. The requirement was among a handful of funding conditions the US Commerce Department outlined this week after announcing it would begin accepting applications for money from the CHIPS Act in late June. Congress passed the $280 billion measure last July in a rare show of bipartisan cooperation and set aside $52 billion in tax credits and funding for US semiconductor firms to expand domestic production.

“Recipients will be required to enter into an agreement restricting their ability to expand semiconductor manufacturing capacity in foreign countries of concern for a period of 10 years after taking the money,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told reporters, per the Financial Times. Raimondo did not name China by name. However, the superpower is among the nations the US government considers a “foreign country of concern.”

Additionally, Raimondo said CHIPS Act recipients cannot “knowingly engage in any joint research or technology licensing effort with a foreign entity of concern that involves sensitive technologies or products,” a requirement likely designed to discourage domestic firms from signing agreements like the one Ford recently announced with China’s CATL.

“I also want to be clear that no CHIPS dollars can be spent on stock buybacks,” Raimondo said. “This is about investing in our national security, not enabling these companies to use our money to increase their profits.” The Commerce Department will also require companies applying for more than $150 million to outline how they plan to provide affordable childcare to workers, a funding condition Raimondo said reflects the current labor market. In some instances, the agency may require those same recipients to return some of the money they receive from the CHIPS Act to the government if they generate excess profits. 

A new Senate bill aims to expand protections for Americans' health and location data. It follows concerns that such information could be used to identify individuals seeking reproductive health care services after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion last year. 

The Upholding Protections for Health and Online Location Data (UPHOLD) Privacy Act seeks to block companies from selling personally identifiable health data for advertising purposes and ban data brokers from buying and selling precise location data. Moreover, the proposed legislation would afford consumers more access to and ownership over their health data. It would also place more restrictions on companies’ use of personal health data without the explicit consent of a user.

The bill aims to prohibit the use of personally identifiable health data from any source for advertising. This includes data from users themselves, medical centers, fitness trackers and browser histories. The UPHOLD Privacy Act's restrictions wouldn't apply to public health campaigns.

The legislation was introduced by Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono. “With Republicans working to ban and criminalize reproductive health care nationwide, it’s critical we safeguard the reproductive data privacy of everyone in our country,” Hirono said in a statement. “Everyone should be able to trust that personal data about their bodies and their health care will be protected. By restricting the sale and use of personally identifiable health data, this bill will give patients and providers the peace of mind that their private information is secure.”

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June, legislators have not made much headway toward protecting consumer health data. Period-tracking apps have given some particular cause for concern. Developers of some of these apps have since introduced features and policies to help protect their users' data.

The Federal Trade Commission said soon after the Supreme Court ruling that it would clamp down on companies which misuse health and location data. This week, the agency moved to ban online counseling service BetterHelp from sharing consumers' health data for ad targeting without consent. The FTC found that the company shared users' email addresses, IPs and health questionnaire responses. BetterHelp says it has never shared clinical data from therapy sessions with advertisers, publishers or social media companies.