Connect with us

Published

on

For nearly a decade, utility companies have been targeted by companies and individuals selling a particular kind of snake oil. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a lot of these people are acting maliciously (I’ll get to that in a minute). In fact, I think a lot of these people have the best of intentions at heart — there’s just a problem in the way they look at the world, and that’s this: they’re wrong about what the utility companies’ role in the transition to EVs needs to be, and there is a whole lot of incentive for them to stay wrong.

How We Got Here

Before we talk about how we got here, we need to talk about what “here” is. Basically, we exist in a world that is still very much influenced by pressures that started way back in 2008 and 2009 when the housing market collapsed, fuel prices soared, and carmakers were desperate to sell new cars and trucks to just about anyone who could still buy them. The flex-fuel Dodge Ram pickups (Ram was still part of Dodge back then) had “Runs on Corn!” written in broad strokes across the windshield while they baked in the Napleton Northlake Dodge parking lot.

It was a wild time, for sure, but it was the first real shake to the ever-growing US car market that many of us had lived through, and it was very much the dawn of the EV startup. There was Tesla, there was Fisker, there was Aptera, heck, there was even Paul Elio and his goofy tadpole thing. Everyone was pushing for 40 MPG or 50 MPG cars, hybrids were in the limelight, and nobody back then really knew if it would be biofuels or hydrogen or battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) that would win the day.

Now, as I type this, it’s obvious that BEVs won. It wasn’t so much that BEVs won, though. It was Tesla that won, and every other carmaker has been forced to participate in the electric future that Tesla created. And, to their credit, just about every one of them — with a few notable holdouts, like Toyota and Mazda — have jumped into the BEV race with both feet, committing to a majority electric future by 2030, if not a fully electric one … and the environmentalists are pushing this as a huge win.

The EV Future Is Not An Environmentalist Victory

No to Climate Death! Used under CC License.

Read that heading again, carefully. This isn’t an article that’s claiming EVs are worse for the environment than internal combustion (those articles are complete and utter bullshit, anyway). What this is is an article that hopes to explain that Tesla — and, by extension, all EVs — didn’t win because they are better for the environment. The EVs won because they are better cars.

That’s it. That’s the reason. Electric cars are better cars. Electric cars are succeeding as a product, in other words, not as an ideology.

It’s not the planet. It’s a sad fact, but almost no one cares about the planet. Even in a liberal Utopia like Portland, Oregon, headlines about record heat waves hover over pictures of JetSkis leaping over the waves and scantily-clad women on motor yachts enjoying mojitos. Hardly the picture of doom and gloom that you’d expect from a burning planet facing record heat waves, record droughts, and a global pandemic that’s still churning out thousands of newly-stuffed body bags every day, you know?

You know.

The Consultants Get Paid

Screencap from Breaking Bad.

The success of Tesla has given the internal-combustion stakeholders a bloody nose, and the environmentalists and activists — even the most well-meaning among them — have done everything they can to draw attention to that fact. As such, the sharkiest sharks have had no choice but to smell the blood in the water, and find a way to cash in. Who are they? Consultants.

While the environmental activists are working hard to change the way that people think about cars with talk about “average commutes” and “savings calculators” and “cradle to grave emissions” and “educating the public about the benefits of EVs” to anyone who will listen, the consultants have found someone who is not just willing to listen, but who is willing to reach into some very, very deep pockets when they’re done listening. That someone is the utility companies.

Utility companies, almost without exception, have millions of captive customers who must pay them every month or risk their health, their jobs, or more. That also means they have millions of dollars to play with. Combine that huge budget with pressure from policy makers and those very same, well-meaning environmentalists, and you end up with a large company that has a large PR incentive to spend large amounts of money on large projects — projects like getting people to buy more EVs! (Maybe even large ones!)

The first problem is that even the most well-meaning and sincere among the policy makers and activists typically have no idea how the car business works. Like, none. Not even a little bit. They don’t know about floorplans or co-ops or CSI scores or allocations — and they certainly, as a group, have no idea how those things can conspire against a dealer or salesperson who might very much want to sell you an electric car, but who literally cannot, through no fault of their own.

The second problem is that very few people at the utility companies understand how the car business works, either, but they at least know enough to know that they don’t know enough, and that’s where the consultants swoop in and convince the utilities that it’s their job — no, their mission — to convince people to buy electric cars.

To aid in that mission, the consultants have created a cottage industry of certificate programs, expensive training seminars, and online buyers’ guides that are terrible at convincing people to choose a perfectly reasonable EV instead of a loud and emotional Hemi-powered monster, terrible at their stated mission of helping dealers to sell cars, and terrible at showing people how an electric car can fit into the lives, today, but that are very good at convincing utility companies to transfer money from their bank accounts to the consultant’s.

They got it wrong, and that was the elephant in the room right now that everyone was afraid to talk about at that “big” EV web conference took part in last month. The environmentalists and activists who wanted the utility companies and policy-makers to engage in conversations with John Q. Public about “wheel to well emissions” and change the way people make decisions about cars got it 100% wrong. EVs aren’t succeeding because people are changing the way they think, they’re succeeding because they’re meeting new car buyers where they’re at today with body styles, performance figures, and capabilities that are more in line with what mainstream Americans are already buying, which also includes easily knowing how and where to fill up. The EV evangelists got it wrong, and the consultants took advantage of their political clout in order to siphon money out of the utilities. Full stop.

TL;DR: environmentalists and activists lobbied utility companies to become more visibly “green,” and the consultants took advantage of that by convincing the utility companies that it’s their job to sell cars, when it’s actually their job to sell electricity.

Selling Electric Fuel

Image courtesy Western Electric Co., circa 1915.

Utility companies sell electricity, plain and simple. But, they’ve had such a captive market and such a strong natural monopoly on their primary product that almost no one involved in a utility company’s day-to-day even thinks about selling electricity.

Want to see someone flounder? Ask someone at a utility company why you should buy electricity from them.

It seems like an asinine question, doesn’t it? A given, even, that you must buy electricity — but that wasn’t always the case. At the turn of the last century, though, it was a legitimate question. My own home outside of Chicago still has gas fixtures in it, for gas lights. There are pictures of lamplighters on the streets right outside, and the reason those gas lamps aren’t lit tonight is that, once upon a time, someone sold electricity to the people of this neighborhood.

Electricity is a superior product, and it succeeded because it was cleaner than gas and oil, sure, but I’d weigh that at about 10% of the reason why. The reasons that weighed heavier were many. The electric lights burned brighter, the smell of burning fuel oil was gone, the hassle of refilling oil lamps was eliminated, there was no smoke to stain the walls or ceilings, either.

That was it. That was the reason: electric fuel was better fuel. It succeeded as a product and not an ideology.

Image courtesy Chicago Edison Co.

Fast forward a hundred-odd years, and electric fuel is still better fuel. The electricity pushes cars to highway speeds faster than gasoline can, that gasoline smell that sticks to your hands is gone, the hassle of pumping gas into the car every few days is eliminated by at-home charging, and there are no harmful tailpipe emissions, either.

What’s more, electricity is cheap, it’s familiar, and it is absolutely everywhere. Sure, there may not be a 20 minutes-to-200 miles fast charger on every street corner (yet), but there very much is a power outlet that will, given time, charge your electric car, and every new electric car sold is a new car that needs electric fuel.

That’s it. That’s the difference. An electric car is just a regular car that you fill up with different stuff, and the utility companies, environmentalists — and every other stakeholder, come to think of it — would be better served by understanding that they’ll never “advance” or “accelerate” EV adoption by getting people to change the way they think about cars, but they may have a chance by getting people to change the way they think about the fuel that they’re putting in their cars.

Not dirty. Clean!
Not hard to find. Everywhere!
Not an expensive luxury. Affordable!
Not for hippies and tree-huggers. For everyone!
Not a sacrifice for a better tomorrow. Better for me, now!

Once the utility companies understand their role, they can start affecting real change, and let the dealers do what they know how to do best: sell cars that people want to buy to the people that want to buy them. And if that means that one or two of these opportunistic “consultants” has to find a different 9-5? So much the better.

Original content from CleanTechnica.


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

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Published

on

By

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Forget fumbling with cables or hunting for batteries – TILER is making electric bike charging as seamless as parking your ride. The Dutch startup recently introduced its much-anticipated TILER Compact system, a plug-and-play wireless charger engineered to transform the user experience for e-bike riders.

At the heart of the new system is a clever combo: a charging kickstand that mounts directly to almost any e‑bike, and a thin charging mat that you simply park over. Once you drop the kickstand and it lands on the mat, the bike begins charging automatically via inductive transfer – no cable required. According to TILER, a 500 Wh battery will fully charge in about 3.5 hours, delivering comparable performance to traditional wired chargers.

It’s an elegantly simple concept (albeit a bit chunky) with a convenient upside: less clutter, fewer broken cables, and no more need to bend over while feeling around for a dark little hole.

TILER claims its system works with about 75% of existing e‑bike platforms, including those from Bosch, Yamaha, Bafang, and other big bames. The kit uses a modest 150 W wireless power output, which means charging speeds remain practical while keeping the system lightweight (the tile weighs just 2 kg, and it’s also stationary).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

TILER has already deployed over 200 charging points across Western Europe, primarily serving bike-share, delivery, hospitality, and hotel fleets. A recent case study in Munich showed how a cargo-bike operator saved approximately €1,250 per month in labor costs, avoided thousands in spare batteries, and cut battery damage by 20%. The takeaway? Less maintenance, more uptime.

Now shifting to prosumer markets, TILER says the Compact system will hit pre-orders soon, with a €250 price tag (roughly US $290) for the kickstand plus tile bundle. To get in line, a €29 refundable deposit is currently required, though they say it is refundable at any point until you receive your charger. Don’t get too excited just yet though, there’s a bit of a wait. Deliveries are expected in summer 2026, and for now are covering mostly European markets.

The concept isn’t entirely new. We’ve seen the idea pop up before, including in a patent from BMW for charging electric motorcycles. And the efficacy is there. Skeptics may wonder if wireless charging is slower or less efficient, but TILER says no. Its system retains over 85% efficiency, nearly matching wired charging speeds, and even pauses at 80% to protect battery health, then resumes as needed. The tile is even IP67-rated, safe for outdoor use, and about as bulky as a thick magazine.

Electrek’s Take

I love the concept. It makes perfect sense for shared e-bikes, especially since they’re often returning to a dock anyway. As long as people can be trained to park with the kickstand on the tile, it seems like a no-brainer.

And to be honest, I even like the idea for consumers. I know it sounds like a first-world problem, but bending over to plug something in at floor height is pretty annoying, not to mention a great way to throw out your back if you’re not exactly a spring chicken anymore. Having your e-bike start charging simply by parking it in the right place is a really cool feature! I don’t know if it’s $300 cool, but it’s pretty cool!

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches new software update with Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car

Published

on

By

Tesla launches new software update with Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car

Tesla has launched a new software update for its vehicles that includes the anticipated integration of Grok, but it doesnt even interface with the car yet.

Earlier this week, CEO Elon Musk said that Tesla would integrate Grok, the large language model developed by his private company, xAI, into its vehicles.

Today, Tesla started pushing the update to the fleet, but there’s a significant caveat.

The automaker wrote in the release notes (2025.26):

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Grok (Beta) (US, AMD)

Grok now available directly in your Tesla

Requires Premium Connectivity or a WiFi connection

Grok is currently in Beta & does not issue commands to your car – existing voice commands remain unchanged.

First off, it is only available in vehicles in the US equipped with the AMD infotainment computer, which means cars produced since mid-2021.

But more importantly, Tesla says that it doesn’t send commands to the car under the current version. Therefore, it is simply like having Grok on your phone, but on the onboard computer instead.

Tesla showed an example:

There are a few other features in the 2025.26 software update, but they are not major.

For Tesla vehicles equipped with ambient lighting strips inside the car, the light strip can now sync to music:

Accent lights now respond to music & you can also choose to match the lights to the album’s color for a more immersive effect

Toybox > Light Sync

Here’s the new setting:

The audio setting can now be saved under multiple presets to match listening preferences for different people or circumstances:

The software update also includes the capacity to zoom or adjust the playback speed of the Dashcam Viewer.

Cybertruck also gets the updated Dashcam Viewer app with a grid view for easier access and review of recordings:

Tesla also updated the charging info in its navigation system to be able to search which locations require valet service or pay-to-park access.

Upon arrival, drivers will receive a notification with access codes, parking restrictions, level or floor information, and restroom availability:

Finally, there’s a new onboarding guide directly on the center display to help people who are experiencing a Tesla vehicle for the first time.

Electrek’s Take

Tesla is really playing catch-up here. Right now, this update is essentially nothing. If you already have Grok, it’s no more different than having it on your phone or through the vehicle’s browser, since it has no capacity to interact with any function inside the vehicle.

Most other automakers are integrating LLMs inside vehicles with the capacity to interact with the vehicle. In China, this is becoming standard even in entry-level cars.

In the Xiaomi YU7, the vehicle’s AI can not only interact with the car, but it also sees what the car sees through its camera, and it can tell you about what it sees:

Tesla is clearly far behind on that front as many automakers are integrating with other LLMs like ChatGPT and in-house LLMs, like Xiaomi’s.

Continue Reading

Environment

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Published

on

By

Robinhood is up 160% this year, but several obstacles are ahead

Florida AG opens probe into Robinhood. Here's the latest

Robinhood stock hit an all-time high Friday as the financial services platform continued to rip higher this year, along with bitcoin and other crypto stocks.

Robinhood, up more than 160% in 2025, hit an intraday high above $101 before pulling back and closing slightly lower.

The reversal came after a Bloomberg report that JPMorgan plans to start charging fintechs for access to customer bank data, a move that could raise costs across the industry.

For fintech firms that rely on thin margins to offer free or low-cost services to customers, even slight disruptions to their cost structure can have major ripple effects. PayPal and Affirm both ended the day nearly 6% lower following the report.

Despite its stellar year, the online broker is facing several headwinds, with a regulatory probe in Florida, pushback over new staking fees and growing friction with one of the world’s most high-profile artificial intelligence companies.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier opened a formal investigation into Robinhood Crypto on Thursday, alleging the platform misled users by claiming to offer the lowest-cost crypto trading.

“Robinhood has long claimed to be the best bargain, but we believe those representations were deceptive,” Uthmeier said in a statement.

The probe centers on Robinhood’s use of payment for order flow — a common practice where market makers pay to execute trades — which the AG said can result in worse pricing for customers.

Robinhood Crypto General Counsel Lucas Moskowitz told CNBC its disclosures are “best-in-class” and that it delivers the lowest average cost.

“We disclose pricing information to customers during the lifecycle of a trade that clearly outlines the spread or the fees associated with the transaction, and the revenue Robinhood receives,” added Moskowitz.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev explains 'dual purpose' behind trading platform's new crypto offerings

Robinhood is also facing opposition to a new 25% cut of staking rewards for U.S. users, set to begin October 1. In Europe, the platform will take a smaller 15% cut.

Staking allows crypto holders to earn yield by locking up their tokens to help secure blockchain networks like ethereum, but platforms often take a percentage of those rewards as commission.

Robinhood’s 25% cut puts it in line with Coinbase, which charges between 25.25% and 35% depending on the token. The cut is notably higher than Gemini’s flat 15% fee.

It marks a shift for the company, which had previously steered clear of staking amid regulatory uncertainty.

Under President Joe Biden‘s administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission cracked down on U.S. platforms offering staking services, arguing they constituted unregistered securities.

With President Donald Trump in the White House, the agency has reversed course on several crypto enforcement actions, dropping cases against major players like Coinbase and Binance and signaling a more permissive stance.

Even as enforcement actions ease, Robinhood is under fresh scrutiny for its tokenized stock push, which is a growing part of its international strategy.

The company now offers blockchain-based assets in Europe that give users synthetic exposure to private firms like OpenAI and SpaceX through special purpose vehicles, or SPVs.

An SPV is a separate entity that acquires shares in a company. Users then buy tokens of the SPV and don’t have shareholder privileges or voting rights directly in the company.

OpenAI has publicly objected, warning the tokens do not represent real equity and were issued without its approval. In an interview with CNBC International, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged the tokens aren’t technically equity shares, but said that misses the broader point.

JPMorgan announces plans to charge for access to customer bank data

“What’s important is that retail customers have an opportunity to get exposure to this asset,” he said, pointing to the disruptive nature of AI and the historically limited access to pre-IPO companies.

“It is true that these are not technically equity,” Tenev added, noting that institutional investors often gain similar exposure through structured financial instruments.

The Bank of Lithuania — Robinhood’s lead regulator in the EU — told CNBC on Monday that it is “awaiting clarifications” following OpenAI’s statement.

“Only after receiving and evaluating this information will we be able to assess the legality and compliance of these specific instruments,” a spokesperson said, adding that information for investors must be “clear, fair, and non-misleading.”

Tenev responded that Robinhood is “happy to continue to answer questions from our regulators,” and said the company built its tokenized stock program to withstand scrutiny.

“Since this is a new thing, regulators are going to want to look at it,” he said. “And we expect to be scrutinized as a large, innovative player in this space.”

SEC Chair Paul Atkins recently called the model “an innovation” on CNBC’s Squawk Box, offering some validation as Robinhood leans further into its synthetic equity strategy — even as legal clarity remains in flux across jurisdictions.

Despite the regulatory noise, many investors remain focused on Robinhood’s upside, and particularly the political tailwinds.

The company is positioning itself as a key beneficiary of Trump’s newly signed megabill, which includes $1,000 government-seeded investment accounts for newborns. Robinhood said it’s already prototyping an app for the ‘Trump Accounts‘ initiative.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Watch CNBC's full interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev

Continue Reading

Trending