Connect with us

Published

on

Originally published on NRDC Expert Blog.
By Sarah Dougherty,  Tom Zimpleman, & Gabriel Daly 

G7 leaders met in the UK last week, and climate was high on the agenda, as it must be. One of the areas of agreement among the leaders of the world’s largest economies might seem new but has been in the works for years: mandatory climate disclosures from companies.

The US has broad disclosure laws, which allow the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as a regulator of stock exchanges and stock sales, to require companies to provide the public with information that can help us make decisions, like about a company’s finances, operations, how it compensates executives, and how it is run. Climate change is an issue on which the SEC needs to require more disclosure — and the Chair of the SEC has indicated he and the Commission intend to require companies to disclose how climate change affects the risks and opportunities they face. The SEC is expected to issue a rule later this year. We think it is about time: NRDC has been pushing for more disclosure on environmental issues since 1971. And, it matters to investors with a recent CFA Institute survey finding 40 percent of investment professionals already incorporating climate risk to inform their investment decisions.

As part of our advocacy for mandatory climate disclosure, NRDC submitted comments to the SEC’s recent request for information. Only mandatory disclosures will allow the SEC to meet its mandate: “to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.” If investors do not know the climate risks — and opportunities — that the companies they are invested in may face, it’s hard to see how investors can be protected and markets can function efficiently.

As we explained in our comments, new rules need to require each company to disclose:

  • the full scope of its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This includes GHG emissions from assets that it owns, like factories, buildings, or transportation fleets; GHG emissions from the power is uses to run its factories and buildings; and GHG emissions from using the products it makes (in the case of manufacturers) or the investments it makes (in the case of banks or investment companies).
  • the company’s projections about how realistic climate change scenarios will affect the company. Climate change is likely to result in more widespread flooding, wildfires, and more powerful hurricanes. Those events can damage property, disrupt supply chains, and hurt employees. But climate change may also lead to a shift to more sustainable products, alternative energy sources, and new business opportunities. Investors need to know how companies are planning for these possibilities.
  • how the company’s operations affect communities vulnerable to climate change.

These disclosures would give investors information that’s useful for their decisions, allowing investors to identify companies (and industries) taking the risks of climate change seriously and planning accordingly. Investors would be better able to allocate capital efficiently to companies that are responsibly planning for the physical risks climate change is already creating — like wildfires and sea-level rise — as well as the transitions risks — changes in policy, consumer preferences, prices, and the like — that our collective response to climate change is likely to impose. And as we know, the costs of climate change will be — and are already — borne disproportionately by low-income communities and communities of color. Disclosures could provide information and insights into how different stakeholders may be impacted by climate change, including vulnerable communities. Additionally, shifting financial incentives away from climate-harming investments is one step towards alleviating those burdens on vulnerable communities.

A voluntary system, which has been in effect for about 15 years, was a good start. But voluntary disclosure has not generated important information nor made it easy to compare between companies. Requiring that companies disclose the risks their businesses face from, and contribute to, climate change will produce information comparable across companies and industries, allowing investors and the public to make better-informed decisions.

In their communique summarizing the G7 meeting, the G7 leaders highlighted their agreement on the importance of climate disclosures:

“We emphasise the need to green the global financial system so that financial decisions take climate considerations into account. We support moving towards mandatory climate-related financial disclosures that provide consistent and decision-useful information for market participants and that are based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, in line with domestic regulatory frameworks.”

Ensuring that investors know the climate risks of the companies they own or may consider purchasing is an obvious first step to greening the global financial system. We are glad the G7 leaders agree and are working to make it happen in the world’s largest economies.

Polaris Ranger EV supports security operations at G7 Summit: “The G7 Summit was the largest operation in Devon and Cornwall Police history, with a total of 6,500 officers and staff on duty from all over the UK. We worked extremely hard to minimise the impact on the community around Cornwall, and as part of those efforts, we enlisted a fleet of electric Polaris Ranger vehicles to patrol and monitor the beaches and other hard to reach areas. Being completely electric off-road vehicles, they were the perfect choice for use on sand and provided our officers with the ideal solution for maintaining security without noise, pollution or disruption to the local community.” Image courtesy of Polaris.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Avis has new T&Cs for renting its EVs, and they’re a little weird

Published

on

By

Avis has new T&Cs for renting its EVs, and they're a little weird

Tesla Model 3 Source: Tesla

Car rental giant Avis just sent an email out today to its customers to let that it has new rental terms and conditions for its fleet EVs. Some of the company’s EV rules are a bit of a head scratcher.

Here’s what the email said:

As we introduce Electric Vehicles to our fleet, our rental terms have been amended. To accommodate our expanding vehicle inventory, this amends the agreement signed by you with respect to the rental of a vehicle powered by an electric motor (an “EV”). Our updated terms can be found here.

Note that these were sent out by Avis Canada, but the rental terms and conditions are for both the United States and Canada.

I’ve pasted the seven-plus points terms included in the EV section below, and my comments are after each point, in bolded italics:

39. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) TERMS. This EV Amendment amends the rental agreement signed by you with respect to the rental of a vehicle powered by an electric motor (an “EV”) from Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Aviscar, Inc., or any Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, affiliate, or the independent Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, licensee identified on the rental agreement (collectively referred to herein as “Avis”).

Boilerplate text. All good. Next.

1) AMENDMENT TO RENTAL AGREEMENT: This EV Amendment simultaneously amends the terms of your rental from Avis with respect to the terms herein only.  All other terms of your rental remain in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this EV Amendment and your other rental terms, the terms of this EV Amendment shall govern.

More boilerplate. Nothing to see here.

2) ONE WAY RENTALS ARE NOT PERMITTED:  Due to unique infrastructure needs associated with EV’s, your EV must be returned to your rental location on the date/time specified in your rental terms.  If your EV is not returned to the renting location, all costs incurred in transporting your EV back to the renting location will be assessed to you.  In addition, you will be assessed a fee for Avis’ loss of use of the EV between the time that you should have returned the EV to the renting location and the time that it is returned to the renting location up to a maximum of thirty (30) days. The loss of use fee will be your daily rental rate.

“Unique infrastructure needs.” LOL.

At the end of January, a couple of us at Electrek received a PR announcement announcing that Avis was launching a “significant number of EV charging stations at the George Bush International Airport in Houston” with EverCharge. The EV charging stations will “only be used by the Avis and Budget fleets of EVs and PHEVs available for rent” at Houston airport.

I asked, “How many EVs does Avis have for rent across the US, and which makes and models?” And got the reply: “Avis is not commenting on the specifics of its fleet at this time.”

Bummer, because Hertz sure is commenting, and with Tom Brady to boot.

I asked the spokesperson how many EV charging stations Avis is installing at Houston airport, and they wouldn’t tell me – they only said that both DC and Level 2 are being put in.

I asked what the rollout plan is for other North American airports, and got the reply:

Following the launch at the Houston airport, Avis and EverCharge plan to extend the partnership to additional airport locations this year.

So, based on the above information, it would appear that the reason why a car rental customer has to return the EV to the original rental location – in this case, airports – is because Avis doesn’t have enough EV charging infrastructure yet.

I get that this is a growing pains issue, but simply, it isn’t very practical. Not everyone returns to the place where they rented a car.

Maybe Avis should have installed more EV charging infrastructure before it rolled out its unknown quantity of EVs.

One can currently rent a Tesla Model 3 from Avis in seven US states – all in the West. It’s kind of silly that one can’t drive between those locations without having to return to home base.

3) BATTERY CHARGING LEVELS AT VEHICLE CHECK OUT: Avis will rent the EV with at least a 70% charge on the battery.  The range of your EV will vary based on a number of factors including vehicle load, driver’s actions such as speed and acceleration, climate and terrain factors such as inclines.  Avis does not warrant or guarantee the range of an EV.

Why 70%? The ideal topped-up charge level is 80%. If Avis has EV chargers at its rental locations, then it should charge them to 80%.

And Avis ought to print up a helpful document, or give renters a QR code, so they can read about why and how vehicle load, speed, and acceleration affect charge. Let’s not say there are factors without explaining them.

4) BATTERY CHARGING LEVELS AT VEHICLE RETURN:   Your EV must be returned to Avis with a battery charge level of at least 70%.  If returned at less than 70% but more than 10% battery charge level, a charging fee of $35 will be assessed to you.  If returned with less than a 10% battery charge level, you will be assessed an additional low charge fee of $35 (a total of $70 charging fees if returned with a battery charge of less than 10%). The charging fee is based on the kilowatt hours, overhead, loss of use of the EV and administrative costs Avis incurs in charging the vehicle.  Note:  fees assessed in the United States refer to U.S. dollars and fees assessed in Canada refer to Canadian dollars.

A $35 car charging fee is a bit steep. Let’s say a driver returns the car with 50% charge – the amount of money to bring it to 70% would be around US $5 at the most.

An 80kwh Tesla battery x 20c/kwh (high estimate) = $16 assuming 0-100% charge.

But I guess this is like when you bring a gas car back empty without prior arrangements, and car rental companies charge you a really high fill-up fee. And if Avis has DC chargers, then they won’t have to wait long to charge up a car that has a battery charge level of less than 70%.

5) ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE:   Roadside assistance is available for your EV but fuel cannot be delivered to EV’s.   If you require roadside service because you depleted your EV’s batteries, your EV will be towed to your renting location and the towing expense will be assessed to you.   If you require another vehicle due to a breakdown, you may be provided a gasoline powered vehicle in which case, all fuel provisions of your rental terms shall apply with respect to your replacement vehicle.

“Fuel cannot be delivered to EVs” – heehee. Love it. It would be cool if Avis invested in some mobile EV charging trucks to make up for the fact that they don’t actually have enough EV charging infrastructure yet to service their EV fleets.

Why can’t the EV be towed to the nearest Tesla Supercharger or Electrify America or similar? Why does it have to go all the way back to the renting location? What if the driver is on a road trip? This one definitely qualifies as weird. This may scare some people off who wanted to try an EV for the first time.

6) SPECIAL EV EQUIPMENT:  All EV equipment including, but not limited to, charging equipment, keys, key cards, fobs and/or remote (“EV Equipment”) provided with your EV must be returned.  The full replacement cost of any EV Equipment not returned with your EV will be charged to you.  LDW, even if elected, does not cover EV Equipment.

Maybe this is a legal thing, but surely it would be common sense that keys, key cards, and fobs would have to be returned, much like any gas rental car? Perhaps Avis has experienced some customers throwing away key cards because they think they’re like hotel key cards? At any rate, I’d be pretty annoyed if I was an Avis employee and customers kept throwing away the key cards, so fair enough. Fobs is a bit of an overstretch. I guess they just had to mention them to cover backs.

7) UNIQUE TESLA TERMS:  If you rented a Tesla EV, you will be able to access Tesla Superchargers, subject to availability, to recharge Tesla vehicles provided, however: 1) any fees, charges and/or costs to access and utilize the Tesla Superchargers shall be your responsibility; 2) any Tesla “idle fees”, as defined and charged by Tesla, shall be your responsibility (see Tesla’s website for details https://www.tesla.com/support/supercharger-idle-fee); and 3) the provisions of “Battery Charging Levels at Vehicle Return” shall continue to apply to you.

These are fair terms, because they’re essentially Tesla terms 101.

TESLA VEHICLES MAY NOT BE WASHED AT AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN AUTOMATIC CAR WASH SHALL BE ASSESSED TO YOU PURSUANT TO THE “DAMAGE/LOSS TO THE CAR” PROVISIONS OF YOUR RENTAL TERMS AND WILL NOT BE COVERED BY LDW.

I love the bold capital letters for the CAR WASH RULES. One can take Teslas through car washes, but only in touchless car washes. Teslas have Car Wash Mode.

Maybe Avis decided that putting its Teslas into Car Wash Mode is too complicated for its customers and too much like hard work for its reps to explain how to use the feature to every EV renter? It’s never occurred to me to take a rental car to a car wash, but I’m not fastidious with my cars. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this car wash thing in the comments below.

Photo: Tesla


UnderstandSolar is a free service that links you to top-rated solar installers in your region for personalized solar estimates. Tesla now offers price matching, so it’s important to shop for the best quotes. Click here to learn more and get your quotes. — *ad

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon Musk found not guilty in the Tesla 420 take-private case

Published

on

By

Elon Musk found not guilty in the Tesla 420 take-private case

A jury has found Elon Musk not guilty in the case of his tweet about taking Tesla private at $420 a share.

5 years later, this single tweet is still haunting the Tesla CEO.

For those who don’t remember the situation, back in 2018, Musk briefly considered trying to bring Tesla private and disclosed that to investors through a simple tweet.

The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that Musk exaggerated and misled shareholders when saying that the funding was “secured” in the tweet:

Musk went on a campaign against the SEC, calling them names and claiming that they were working for people shorting the electric automaker. But ultimately, Tesla and Musk ended up reaching a settlement with the SEC.

As part of the settlement, Musk agreed to step down from the role of chairman of the board, and Tesla and Musk had to each pay $20 million in fines.

The CEO presumably didn’t want Tesla to have to pay for his issue with the SEC. While he couldn’t directly pay for Tesla’s part of the fine, he decided to buy $20 million worth of shares from Tesla. That way, he sort of indirectly ended up paying for Tesla’s fine – though he also ended up with ~71,000 additional Tesla shares in the process.

As we previously reported, Musk ended up actually making money from the settlement due to Tesla’s stock price surging.

Another part of the settlement was that Musk and Tesla had to agree for the former to have his tweets reviewed by the latter’s legal department if they are material to the company.

Musk has consistently denied any wrongdoings and claimed he settled with the SEC under pressure from Tesla investors.

Separately, Tesla investors have sued Musk personally over the tweet – claiming that they were defrauded of millions of dollars as Musk exaggerated the claim that funding was secured.

The case was ongoing for years, but it was finally heard by a jury in Northern California last week.

Today, the jury released its verdict – finding Musk not liable for the investor’s losses.

Musk commented on the verdict:

Thank goodness, the wisdom of the people has prevailed! I am deeply appreciative of the jury’s unanimous finding of innocence in the Tesla 420 take-private case.

That’s probably the end of this saga – though Musk is still fighting some of the aspects of his settlement with the SEC, primarily the need to review his tweets material to Tesla’s stock.

Electrek’s Take

That’s probably the right thing.

As we previously reported, all the evidence pointed to Musk being a bit too excited and jumping the gun with the tweet.

For him to be found liable, they would have to prove that he was intentionally planning to defraud investors and that’s a tall task.

He certainly should be more cautious about tweeting things like that when no deal has been signed, but I don’t think it’s fraud.

However, you’d hope that he would become more cautious about his tweeting after this entire saga, but we haven’t seen much evidence of that either.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Jury find Musk, Tesla not liable in securities fraud trial following ‘funding secured’ tweets

Published

on

By

Jury finds Musk, Tesla not liable in securities fraud trial following 'funding secured' tweets

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and his security detail depart the company’s local office in Washington, January 27, 2023.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

Elon Musk and Tesla were found not liable by a jury in a San Francisco federal court on Friday in a class action securities fraud trial stemming from tweets Musk made in 2018.

The Tesla, SpaceX and Twitter CEO was sued by Tesla shareholders over a series of tweets he wrote in Aug. 2018 saying he had “funding secured” to take the automaker private for $420 per share, and that “investor support” for such a deal was “confirmed.” Trading in Tesla was halted after his tweets, and its share price remained volatile for weeks.

Jurors deliberated for less than two hours before reading their verdict. Plaintiffs’ attorneys told CNBC they were “disappointed with the verdict and considering next steps.”

“I am deeply appreciative of the jury’s unanimous finding,” Musk wrote on Twitter.

“He doesn’t think ahead of time in that rushed moment that this could be interpreted differently and what it means to him,” Musk’s attorney told the jury earlier on Friday. “In that moment he didn’t think, ‘how could my words be interpreted differently by you than it means to me.'”

“You have to assess this in context – he’s considering taking it private and the issue is will it actually take it forward,” Musk’s attorney said. “No fraud has ever been built on the back of a consideration.”

Musk’s lead counsel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The shareholders in the certified class action lawsuit included a mix of stock and options buyers who allege that Musk’s tweets were reckless and false, and that relying on his statements to make decisions about when to buy or sell cost them significant amounts of money.

Musk later claimed that he had a verbal commitment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, and thought funding would come through at his proposed price based on a handshake. However, the deal never materialized.

During the course of this trial, Musk also said he would have sold shares of SpaceX to finance a going private deal for Tesla, as well as taking funds from the Saudi Public Investment Fund.

Continue Reading

Trending