Berkshire Hathaway’s energy company is about to hit a major renewable energy milestone
Siemens wind turbines operate on a wind farm in Marshalltown, Iowa, where many of Berkshire’s first big renewable investments were made over the past decade as the former MidAmerican Energy under now-Berkshire Energy was well situated in one of the nation’s top wind corridors.
Timothy Fadek | Corbis News | Getty Images
With annual meeting season coming soon, Warren Buffett‘s climate record is back in the news – and activists are still not happy.
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate faces three different shareholder resolutions heading into its annual “Woodstock for capitalism” on May 6. While no one expects any of the resolutions to pass – Buffett’s opposition and 32% voting stake will likely prevent that – they are attracting support from high-profile investors like California’s $445 billion pension giant CalPERS and have in recent years seen an increasing base of Berkshire shareholders push up vote totals against Buffett’s clearly stated wishes.
The resolutions demand better disclosure of climate risks Berkshire faces from its mix of utilities, reinsurance companies, shipping coal on its Burlington Northern railroad, and investments in oil stocks, which he has been increasing recently, specifically through a big stake in Occidental.
Buffett’s climate metrics getting better
Berkshire is a climate paradox: Many of its climate metrics are improving rapidly, if not as fast as some competitors. The biggest: Its utilities’ renewable power projects completed or under constructions are on track to double the recent national average of electricity generation from renewable sources, and its revenue from coal shipping has moved steadily lower over the past decade. But Berkshire both dishes out and absorbs climate risk – in emissions from power plants and, through its investments in Chevron and Occidental, gasoline-powered cars; and in its insurance exposure to flooding and wildfires that are expected to worsen as global temperatures rise.
“It’s fair to say that for their size, the breadth and complexity of their business, that their approach to climate change continues to lag behind peers,” CFRA Research analyst Cathy Seifert said. “They could be front and center, but I don’t think they will be.”
Any discussion of Berkshire and climate necessarily begin with its utility business, since electricity production accounts for a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, whose CEO Greg Abel is the heir apparent to the 92-year old Buffett himself as the parent company’s chief executive, would be the fifth-biggest U.S. utility holding company if it were independent.
Berkshire Energy spokesman Brandon Zero said the company would have no comment.
BHE is moving rapidly to shift its power mix to wind and solar. Counting plants under construction, Berkshire will soon get 45% of its power from wind, solar, geothermal energy and hydropower, according to Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s annual report, which will comfortable exceed the 21.5% the government reports that all utilities actually generated in 2022. The 31% of electricity capacity Berkshire will be getting from natural gas when its coming plants are done is less than the 40% national share. But it still uses more coal, the dirtiest major electricity fuel – coal represents 23% of Berkshire’s power mix – more than the national average of 20%.
This is a dramatic shift from as recently as 2014, when Berkshire got about a quarter of its power from renewables. Back then, Berkshire’s Oregon-based utility Pacificorp made 60% of its electricity from coal; now it’s 43%, all produced in plants opened by 1986. Iowa-based Mid-American Energy went from 55% to 21%. Along the way, Mid-American built or expanded more than 30 wind plants, exploiting a Midwestern natural resource, while Pacificorp added or expanded 14.
Overall, the utility group has closed 16 coal-fired plants and reduced its carbon emissions by 27% since 2005, according to its annual report, putting it well on track to meet its target of a 50% reduction by 2030, helped by announced closing plans for 16 more coal plants. Railroad emissions are also on track to drop 30 percent from 2018 levels by 2030, the company says.
That’s still not as much as some other utilities have done, and Berkshire has been either less aggressive or less specific in its commitments to bring down carbon emissions, said Daniel Stewart, energy and climate program manager for As You Sow, a shareholder-advisory group sponsoring a resolution at Berkshire’s meeting.
“At a high level, on the utility side there are encouraging signs,” Stewart said, though climate leaders like Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy are cutting emissions 80 percent by 2030 and eliminating coal faster than Berkshire. He added that emerging science should let utilities shift the date when they will reach net zero emissions to 2035 or 2040, compared with 2050. “”What [also] jumps out at me is how poor the disclosure is.”
Warren Buffett (front passenger) and Bill Gates (behind driver) arrive on stage at the electric vehicle BYD M6 nationwide launching ceremony in Beijing on September 29, 2010. Berkshire Hathaway first invested in the Chinese renewable energy and EV giant 15 years ago and still retains a large ownership stake in BYD today.
Frederic J. Brown | Afp | Getty Images
The disclosure issues are the heart of the shareholder resolutions, which have become an annual thing for Berkshire.
Three resolutions — one each sponsored by California’s pension plan, Illinois’ pension plan, and As You Sow — cover the topic.
As You Sow asks for data particularly about Berkshire’s insurance businesses, and a plan for measuring and reducing the climate impact of businesses the unit invests in or insures. Proponents point to rising spending on losses in natural disasters, including the $3.4 billion in claims Berkshire paid related to Hurricane Ian last year, according to Berkshire’s proxy statement.
Illinois’ proposal asks for details on how the company’s audit committee measures climate risks, including whether climate issues will play a role in Berkshire’s closely-watched succession planning.
And CalPERS asked for “an annual assessment addressing how the Company manages physical and transitional climate-related risks and opportunities,” the proxy says. The giant pension fund has also voted early against management’s nominees to the board’s audit committee, citing climate issues.
“When I talk to investors, they’re really focused on transparency,” said Kirsten Spalding, vice president of the Ceres Investor Network, a liberal-leaning investor advisory group. “It’s a matter of good governance [to] know, what are the plans? What are the risks?”
Regulators, investors can tip future balance
Berkshire’s hand may also be forced, fairly soon, by coming state regulations on insurance disclosure and federal securities disclosure rules that require climate risk audits, Seifert said.
The company argues that it already discloses enough. In the proxy, Berkshire points to its energy division’s annual reports that disclose its direct emissions, and contends that its executives and board manage climate risk in part through stress testing its coverage portfolio.
Buffett has called shareholders’ past requests for more climate disclosures “asinine.”
“I don’t think I’ve had three letters in the last year from shareholders,” on climate issues, Buffett said at the 2021 annual meeting, adding that the proposals would require climate audits of Berkshire’s Dairy Queen chain and Borsheims’ jewelry stores when the climate impact is concentrated in utilities, the railroad and the insurance unit. “Overwhelmingly the people who bought Berkshire with their own money voted against those proposals.”
But the losses have become smaller in recent years, as big index funds have owned more of Berkshire, and the newer generations among Berkshire shareholders within families do have changing values from their parents. In 2021, votes against Berkshire management were higher than ever before — still 75% with the board, but roughly 25% in favor of proposals, and that was twice the highest vote against Berkshire’s management on a percentage basis ever. Last year, a measure from As You Sow on greenhouse gas emissions disclosures received support from 47% of independent shareholders (26.5% overall). Over the past decade, many climate proposals had never received as much as 10% support from shareholders.
Spalding and Stewart argue that the losses are worth taking in the shareholder vote, believing the percentage of pro-climate disclosure votes from shareholders other than Buffett and his close aides approaches 50 percent, pressure for change will build and eventually yield results.
“Things change,” Stewart said. “Because education occurs.”
Honda has officially unveiled the new WN7, its latest electric motorcycle and the first in a planned lineup of larger EV two-wheelers. Designed as a commuter-friendly electric motorcycle for the European market, the WN7 is part of Honda’s push toward carbon neutrality.
The launch shines more light on a reveal we’ve long been waiting for. But with a price tag of £12,999 (nearly US $18k), the real question is whether this modest commuter bike has a fighting chance in an increasingly competitive segment.
While Honda hasn’t released the full technical specs for the WN7 just yet, the company has revealed several key features that give us a glimpse of what to expect. The bike will be powered by a permanent magnet synchronous motor paired with a chain drive, offering a familiar mechanical setup for riders used to older combustion-engine motorcycles. Up front, riders will get a 5-inch color TFT display, and the bike will debut a newly developed Honda RoadSync app, which enables smartphone connectivity for navigation and communication. For added practicality, the WN7 includes a generous 20-liter underseat storage compartment, which should be a nice bonus for commuters looking to stash a helmet or daily essentials.
Honda estimates the WN7 will offer a range of over 130 km (83 miles) on a single charge, making it suited for daily commuting and city riding. It features a fixed lithium-ion battery and supports both home and rapid charging. Using a standard household outlet, riders can expect a full charge in under three hours, while a CCS2 rapid charger can top the battery up from 20% to 80% in just 30 minutes, adding flexibility for quick turnarounds during a busy day.
The WN7 is being marketed as a practical, everyday-use electric motorcycle targeting primarily younger riders in urban environments. Honda is also promising quiet operation, easy handling, and a new sound-emitting system to enhance pedestrian awareness, taking cues from current EV regulations in both automotive and two-wheeled segments.
Production is set to begin later this year at Honda’s Atessa plant in Italy, and the bike will be eligible for government EV subsidies in various European markets.
However, Honda hasn’t yet shared key specs like top speed, motor power, or battery capacity, all of which are vital to truly assessing how this electric bike stacks up in real-world use. But with the announced price of £12,999, it’s already clear that the bike won’t be price competitive against other commuter electric motorcycles in the market.
Electrek’s Take
Look, I’m excited to see Honda finally putting an actual electric motorcycle into production. This isn’t a concept or a lab experiment – it’s a real bike you’ll be able to buy. But with a price of £12,999 (approximately US $17,700) for what appears to be a commuter-level electric motorcycle, this thing might be dead on arrival.
Unless Honda is hiding some truly game-changing specs under the panels, this pricing just doesn’t make sense. Riders in the commuter category already have plenty of options ranging from electric scooters to motorcycles, with many models from smaller manufacturers offering comparable (or even better) range and speed for half the price.
Honda may be banking on brand loyalty, reliability, and build quality to justify the price, and maybe that will work for some buyers. But unless the WN7 delivers dramatically better specs than what’s currently been shown, most would-be EV riders are likely to look elsewhere.
This might be a huge milestone for Honda’s electrification roadmap, but it’s hard to call it a win for riders at this price point.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Uber Freight is launching a ‘Dedicated EV Fleet Accelerator Program’ in partnership with Tesla to lower the most significant barrier to electric Class 8 adoption: upfront cost.
The buyer program pairs purchase subsidies for Tesla Semis with pre‑arranged dedicated freight and route planning around Tesla’s Semi Charger network, which is currently being deployed in the US.
As the name implies, the Dedicated EV Fleet Accelerator Program aims to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles in Uber Freight fleets.
Here’s how Uber aims to achieve that from the press release:
- Subsidized Price: Fleets purchasing Tesla Semis through this program will receive a subsidy on the purchase price.
- Predictable Growth: Fleets will integrate their Tesla Semis into Uber Freight’s dedicated solutions for shippers for a pre-determined period. This creates an opportunity for carriers to forecast revenue with confidence, while shippers gain consistent access to reliable, zero-emission capacity.
- Optimize Utilization: Uber Freight taps into its extensive freight network to match carriers with consistent, high-quality freight from our strong shipper base—helping ensure the addition of these Tesla Semis stay fully utilized and carriers see dedicated, real, measurable returns from the start.
Uber actually had a similar partnership with Tesla for its passenger vehicles in Uber’s ride-hailing fleet. Uber drivers were offered discounts on Tesla vehicles and Tesla integrated Uber’s app in its system to work with the car’s navigation and only suggest rides within the vehicle’s current range.
Now, Uber Freight will integrate its software on Tesla Semi trucks and help truckers get routes that work with the electric trucks and its
There are still many unknowns about the program. Primarily, we don’t know how much Uber and Tesla are subsidizing the trucks.
We don’t even have the price of the Tesla Semi.
Tesla originally announced a price of $150,000 for the 300-mile version of the Tesla Semi and $180,000 for the 500-mile version, but this was in 2017, when the electric truck was initially unveiled.
The vehicle program has been delayed several times since and Tesla never updated the price publicly since.
We recently reported on an early Tesla Semi customer, Ryder, complaining of a “dramatic” price increase. The price could have doubled, based on documents Ryders submitted to authorities to obtain financing for its Tesla Semi test fleet.
Now Uber Freight says that Tesla will review the total cost of ownership with potential fleet buyers through its new program.
Tesla Semi is now expected to enter volume production in 2026.
The automaker is also starting to deploy its Megacharger stations, EV fast-charging stations designed for commercial electric vehicles, such as the Tesla Semi.
It is currently primarily installing Megachargers at its own facilities and those of early test partners, but there are also a few public Megacharger stations on the way.
Electrek’s Take
This is cool. We don’t know the exact size of the subsidy, but it is a significant development that Uber Freight is offering more job opportunities for those who own an electric truck.
It should encourage more fleet managers to accelerate their fleet transition to electric vehicles.
The sticker price is often a significant barrier to EV adoption, even though the total cost of ownership is often cheaper than that of internal combustion engine vehicles. However, for truckers, the total cost of ownership is much more important since it is their business.
However, everything suggests that the Tesla Semi will cost closer to $300,000 than $150,000, and therefore, every consideration is important when making such a large purchase.
Interestingly, this new partnership coincides with Rebecca Tinucci’s recent appointment as CEO of Uber Freight.
Tinucci was the head of Tesla’s charging division until last year when she was reportedly fired, along with her entire team, by Elon Musk after she refused to let go a higher percentage of her team.
Now, she is back working with Tesla through this program.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has agreed to settle another wrongful death lawsuit from a fatal crash involving Autopilot before the case could get to trial later this year.
It’s one of many lawsuits involving several crashes involving Tesla’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), after the floodgates were open following a watershed trial.
Over the last few years, Tesla vehicles have been involved in numerous accidents involving the automaker’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS): Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), better known as ‘FSD’.
Despite the names of those feature packages, they are not considered automated driving systems. They are Level 2 driver assistance systems and require the driver’s attention at all times.
Drivers and victims involved in those crashes have often sued Tesla, but the automaker has managed to have the cases dismissed, placing most of the blame on the drivers.
However, things started to change over the last year.
Last year, Tesla settled a wrongful death lawsuit involving a crash on Autopilot that happened in 2018, and last month, the automaker lost its first trial over a crash that occurred in Florida in 2019.
For the first time, a case went to trial before a jury, and they decided to assign a third of the blame for the crash to Tesla for the role Autopilot played. The rest of the blame was assigned to the driver, who had already settled with the victims and their families before the Tesla trial began.
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $243 million. The automaker has made clear its intentions to appeal the verdict.
Before the trial, the plaintiffs offered Tesla to settle for $60 million, and the company refused.
The trial process cost them much more.
The jury didn’t buy Tesla’s usual argument that it couldn’t be blamed because it clearly informs the driver that they are always responsible for the vehicle. The plaintiffs’ lawyers successfully argued that Tesla was careless in the way it deployed Autopilot, without implementing geofencing and marketing it to customers in a manner that encouraged the abuse of the system.
Following the trial results, Electrek reported that the “floogates of Autopilot lawsuits” were open.
There are dozens of additional lawsuits against Tesla involving incidents with Autopilot and FSD, and they are all riding on the verdict as well as all the information that came from the trial.
The same lawyers and law firms that represented the plaintiffs in the trial in Florida are also representing victims and the families in those other lawsuits.
Brett Schreiber, the lead attorney in the Florida case, is also leading Maldonado v. Tesla, another wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla involving its Autopilot feature. The case was set to go to trial in the Alameda State Superior Court by the end of the year.
The case involves a Tesla vehicle on Autopilot that hit a pickup truck on the highway, killing fifteen-year-old Jovani Maldonado, who was a passenger in the pickup truck. His father was driving him back home from a soccer game.
In a new court filing, Tesla and the plaintiffs have requested that the court approve a settlement that the two parties have reportedly agreed upon.
The settlement is confidential.
Electrek’s Take
Like I said, the floodgates are open. We are now starting to see the crashes that occurred in 2018 and 2019 being addressed in court.
This is just the beginning.
Crashes on Autopilot and then FSD have greatly ramped up starting in 2020-2021 with greater delivery volumes and Tesla launching FSD Beta.
I hope that more cases reach trial, as we do learn a lot more about Tesla and its deployment of driver assistance systems through them.
But with how the first one went, I am sure the automaker is much more eager to settle those cases.
However, can it just keep doing that?
There have already been over 50 deaths related to crashes involving Tesla Autopilot or FSD.
As morbid as it sounds, if the going rate for a Tesla Autopilot-related death is around $50 million, that’s already more than $2.5 billion and growing.
This is nuts. Will this continue to happen?
More people die in crashes involving Tesla’s half-baked ADAS products. Tesla continues to compensate the victims and their families with millions each time, essentially using the money it earns from selling the dream of those half-baked ADAS features eventually leading to real autonomy.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment12 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024