In the midst of the United Auto Workers’ strike, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked on Face The Nation whether she plans to trade in her Tesla Model 3 for a union-built EV.
However, there really aren’t many EVs she could pick from, and that’s a problem for the Big Three, the UAW, the American auto industry, and US workers in general. And also for AOC.
The UAW started striking two weeks ago, beginning with shutting down one plant at each of the Big Three auto companies. Only one plug-in car was affected initially, the Jeep 4xe.
Since then, the strike has expanded to several more GM and Stellantis parts distribution centers, but the strike against Ford has not expanded as the UAW says talks are progressing better there.
With only one plug-in car currently affected by the strike, it may seem like EVs lucked out, or that the unions perhaps decided not to stop EV production. But in actuality, the reason that union-made EVs haven’t been affected by the partial shutdowns is because, well, there just aren’t very many of them.
What choices does AOC have?
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has spoken out repeatedly supporting unions. She’s stood on picket lines in her district and generally supports strikes and labor unions.
Last year, she stated that she wanted to trade in her Tesla Model 3 and get a union-made EV instead. And this weekend, with the UAW striking, she was asked the same question again.
In her answer she mentioned that she purchased her car during the pandemic, looking for safe and efficient travel to DC from her district in Queens, New York. At the time, the Model 3 was the best choice for this – and, frankly, it probably still is, based on fast charging capability, price, range, and general vehicle quality.
But it’s also not union-built, and in addition, Tesla CEO Elon Musk often interferes with unionization efforts and talks down on unions (he even did so yesterday) and routinely acts publicly creepy towards AOC, which is likely a contributing factor to her desire to rinse her hands of the brand.
At the time, the only union-built EV made in the US was the Chevy Bolt. There are more union-built EVs today than there were in 2020 when AOC bought her Tesla, but the choices are still limited.
In the last few years, we’ve seen the Ford F-150 Lightning, the Hummer EV, and the Cadillac Lyriq all go into production here in the US with union manufacturing. But none of those would really be great choices for AOC. Nor would the E-Transit, which is mainly for commercial use, though it paints an amusing #Vanlife image for the congresswoman.
The Lightning and Hummer are far too large for a city dweller, and likely too way much vehicle for her purposes. And the Lyriq, despite being really dang nice, is probably not the right statement for an everyman representative like her – although its $57k base price is almost identical to the $58k MSRP that Long Range Model 3s were fetching at their peak price at the end of last year.
At least, those are some union-made EVs that are built in the United States. If we expand elsewhere, we can find plenty of examples of EVs built by union labor. While foreign automakers typically run non-union shops in the US, they are unionized in their own countries (so, no ID.4 then unless she picks a used, early run model before they switched to Tennessee models). European auto-worker unions are strong (especially in Germany), and Asian automakers are typically unionized domestically even if their unions are not as strong as in Germany. Mexican auto assembly plants are also often unionized, including the one that builds the Mustang Mach E.
But, as a US rep, she is probably looking for a US-made vehicle (and to be fair, she does have the most American-made vehicle already in her Tesla). So even the Mach E from our neighbors to the South is out of the running.
That leaves us the same choice she would have had in 2020: the unassuming but awesome Chevy Bolt. We at Electrek think this is a great choice, having given it our Vehicle of the Year award, and it remains a screaming deal given its low MSRP and availability of credits and incentives to drive that price down further (if you can find one anyway – you can check local dealer inventory here).
A Bolt EUV (due to Super Cruise availability, for that long trip down to DC) is going to be our official recommendation.
But it’s still not ideal for her circumstances, since the Bolt has a slow 54kW DC charge rate. Since Queens and DC are about 240 miles apart, the Bolt’s 247 mile range will likely need a little top-up for safety along the way, and slow DC charge rate and lack of access to Tesla’s superior Supercharger network (though that’s changing soon) will make that experience less than optimal.
Her choices could be getting better soon, with the upcoming Chevy Blazer and Equinox EVs, but those aren’t out yet (though they’re due to hit the road this coming quarter). And her choices will get a little worse at the end of the year as well, since the excellent Chevy Bolt is due to end production in December (though it is slated to come back).
So it’s no wonder she hasn’t been able to trade in her car yet – and that’s kind of a problem.
Electrek’s Take
It’s a problem because it shows that the companies that have formed the industrial backbone of the US for so long are simply not building enough EVs. Everyone understands that EVs are the future of the auto industry – though we at Electrek would argue that they are also the present of the auto industry, not just the future.
Tesla currently has around 5x the combined market cap of Ford, GM, and Stellantis, despite that those three companies combined sell about 10x as many vehicles as Tesla currently. This is obviously a quite… optimistic valuation, but it also shows, among other things, that the market values growth and sees where the industry is going. And it’s clear that investors, as a collective, have more confidence in Tesla’s ability to prepare for the future of the industry than they do in the Big Three combined.
Some, including business media and leadership from the Big Three in the last week or two, blame this on the UAW themselves. The argument goes that unionized labor asks for too much or stands in the way of progress, and that this cripples the Big Three with labor costs and keeps them from being competitive as vehicles evolve, particularly given that EVs will require fewer assembly hours than gas cars.
But as mentioned above, other countries’ automakers have strong auto unions and yet are not similarly “shackled.” And when questioned about whether they might oppose the industry’s green transition due to this drop in assembly hours, UAW leadership has never taken the bait and has merely insisted it be a “just transition.”
So everybody knows that we need to go in the right direction, but American automakers have still been slow to offer a wide variety of EV models – despite GM’s promises to the contrary.
The US government has tried to stimulate more production here, via the Inflation Reduction Act, which gives tax credits to domestically-produced EVs. The proposed law originally included an additional union-made credit, but it was struck by the efforts of all 50 republicans and Joe Manchin.
As I stated in the last article about this, personally, I’m pro-union. And I think that everyone should be – it only makes sense that people should have their interests collectively represented, and that people should be able to join together to support each other and exercise their power collectively, instead of individually.
This is precisely what companies do with industry organizations, lobby organizations, chambers of commerce, and so on. And it’s what people do when sorting themselves into local, state, or national governments. So naturally, workers should do the same. It only makes sense.
Unions are important not just for AOC’s car choices, but for American labor as a whole. The US economy and US workers tend to do better when unionization rates are high, and the auto industry is one of the bulwarks of organized labor in the US and has been central to US manufacturing prowess for decades. This is why AOC supports them, and why President Biden, who joined UAW workers on the picket line yesterday, does as well.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Phillips 66 Company’s Los Angeles Refinery in California.
Bing Guan | Reuters
The oil price outlook is being hit with more bearish forecasts on the back of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping and market-hammering tariff announcements. Businesses and investors worry that a trade war and lower global growth lies ahead.
Goldman Sachs on Thursday reduced its December 2025 forecasts for global and U.S. benchmarks Brent crude and WTI by $5 to $66 and $62 a barrel, respectively, “because the two key downside risks we have flagged are realizing, namely tariff escalation and somewhat higher OPEC+ supply.”
The bank also cut its forecasts for the oil benchmarks in 2025 and 2026, adding that “we no longer forecast a price range, because price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk.” Analysts at S&P Global Market Intelligence predict that in a worst-case scenario, global oil demand growth could be slashed by 500,000 barrels per day.
JPMorgan, for its part, raised its recession odds for the global economy to 60% for this year, up from a previous forecast of 40%.
Markets were therefore stunned when OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world’s crude oil — along with its non-OPEC allies that together comprise OPEC+ — chose not only to go ahead with its previously held plans to increase oil production, but also to nearly triple the expected increase figure.
Eight key OPEC+ producers on Thursday agreed to raise combined crude oil output by 411,000 barrels per day, speeding up the pace of their scheduled hikes and pushing down oil prices. The group — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman — was widely expected to implement an increase of just under 140,000 barrels per day next month.
The news pushed oil prices 6% lower.
OPEC+ bullishness and appeasing Trump
Several factors underpin the oil-producing alliance’s decision. One is that the group is bullish on oil demand later in the year, putting it firmly in the minority as investor outlooks sour and fears of a global slowdown worsen.
The eight OPEC+ members behind the production decision cited “the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook” in their statement Thursday, saying that “this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation.”
The statement added that “the gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions.”
Another likely reason for the group’s move has to do with another T-word: the man in the White House, who during his first term in office and from the very start of his second, has loudly demanded that the oil producer group pump more crude to help bring down prices for Americans.
“First of all, this is partly about appeasing Trump,” Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Friday.
“Trump will be putting pressure on OPEC to reduce oil prices, which reduces global energy prices, to help offset the inflationary impact of his tariffs.”
OPEC officials have denied that the move was made to appease Trump.
Compliance and market share
Meanwhile, as compliance is a major issue for OPEC+ — with countries overproducing crude beyond their quotas, complicating the group’s efforts to control how much supply it allows into the market — the move could be a way to enforce that, according to Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets.
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision.”
Helima Croft
head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision,” Croft wrote in a note published Thursday. She referenced the March 2020 oil price war, when Saudi Arabia flooded the market with supply to tank oil prices and forced Russia back into compliance after Moscow initially refused to curb production to help the alliance stabilize prices. The price war caused Brent crude prices to go as low as $15 a barrel.
The production increases are also “an example of OPEC increasing their market share,” Kavonic said, adding that it “ultimately does come at the expense of the United States [shale] patch,” which U.S. producers likely will not be too thrilled about.
What happens next?
OPEC+ appears confident about the market turning a corner in the coming months on the assumption that oil demand will increase in the summer and the tariff wars will be resolved in the coming months, said Nader Itayim, editorial manager at Argus Media.
“These countries are largely comfortable with the $70, $75 per barrel band,” Itayim said.
What comes next depends on the trajectory of the tariffs and a potential trade war. Oil dropping into the $60 range could force pauses or even a reversal in OPEC+ production increase plans, analysts say – although that is likely to be met with resistance from countries like Iraq and Kazakhstan that have long been itching to increase their oil production for their own revenues.
Whatever happens, the group maintains the flexibility to adapt its plans month by month, Itayim noted.
“If things don’t quite go the way they imagine, all it does take, really, is a phone call.”
More than 3 years later, the vehicle never went into volume production. Instead, Tesla only ran a very low volume pilot production at a factory in Nevada and only delivered a few dozen trucks to customers as part of test programs.
But Tesla promised that things would finally happen for the Tesla Semi this year.
The goal was to start production in 2025, start customer deliveries, and ramp up to 50,000 trucks yearly.
Now, Ryder, a large transportation company and early customer-partner in Tesla’s semi truck program, is talking about further delays. The company also refers to a significant price increase.
California’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) awarded Ryder funding for a project to deploy Tesla Semi trucks and Megachargers at two of its facilities in the state.
Ryder had previously asked for extensions amid the delays in the Tesla Semi program.
In a new letter sent to MSRC last week and obtained by Electrek, Ryder asked the agency for another 28-month delay. The letter references delays in “Tesla product design, vehicle production” and it mentions “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics”:
This extension is needed due to delays in Tesla product design, vehicle production and dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics. These delays have caused us to reevaluate the current Ryder fleet in the area.
The logistics company now says it plans to “deploy 18 Tesla Semi vehicles by June 2026.”
The reference to “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics” points to a significant price increase for the Tesla Semi, which further communication with MSRC confirms.
In the agenda of a meeting to discuss the extension and changes to the project yesterday, MSRC confirms that the project went from 42 to 18 Tesla Semi trucks while the project commitment is not changing:
Ryder has indicated that their electric tractor manufacturer partner, Tesla, has experienced continued delays in product design and production. There have also been dramatic changes to the product economics. Ryder requests to reduce the number of vehicles from 42 to 18, stating that this would maintain their $7.5 million private match commitment.
In addition to the electric trucks, the project originally involved installing two integrated power centers and four Tesla Megachargers, split between two locations. Ryder is also looking to now install 3 Megachargers per location for a total of 6 instead of 4.
The project changes also mention that “Ryder states that Tesla now requires 600kW chargers rather than the 750kW units originally engineered.”
Tesla Semi Price
When originally unveiling the Tesla Semi in 2017, the automaker mentioned prices of $150,000 for a 300-mile range truck and $180,000 for the 500-mile version. Tesla also took orders for a “Founder’s Series Semi” at $200,000.
However, Tesla didn’t update the prices when launching the “production version” of the truck in late 2023. Price increases have been speculated, but the company has never confirmed them.
New diesel-powered Class 8 semi trucks in the US today often range between $150,000 and $220,000.
The combination of a reasonable purchase price and low operation costs, thanks to cheaper electric rates than diesel, made the Tesla Semi a potentially revolutionary product to reduce the overall costs of operation in trucking while reducing emissions.
However, Ryder now points to a “dramatic” price increase for the Tesla Semi.
What is the cost of a Tesla Semi electric truck now?
Electrek’s Take
As I have often stated, Tesla Semi is the vehicle program I am most excited about at Tesla right now.
If Tesla can produce class 8 trucks capable of moving cargo of similar weight as diesel trucks over 500 miles on a single charge in high volume at a reasonable price point, they have a revolutionary product on their hands.
But the reasonable price part is now being questioned.
After reading the communications between Ryder and MSRC, while not clear, it looks like the program could be interpreted as MSRC covering the costs of installing the charging stations while Ryder committed $7.5 million to buying the trucks.
The math makes sense for the original funding request since $7.5 million divided by 42 trucks results in around $180,000 per truck — what Tesla first quoted for the 500-mile Tesla Semi truck.
Now, with just 18 trucks, it would point to a price of $415,000 per Tesla Semi truck. It’s possible that some of Ryder’s commitment could also go to an increase in Megacharger prices – either per charger or due to the two additional chargers. MSRC said that they don’t give more money when prices go up after an extension.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 500-mile Tesla Semi ends up costing $350,000 to $400,000.
If that’s the case, Tesla Semi is impressive, but it won’t be the revolutionary product that will change the trucking industry.
It will need to be closer to $250,000-$300,000 to have a significant impact, which is not impossible with higher-volume production but would be difficult.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
British oil and gasoline company BP (British Petroleum) signage is being pictured in Warsaw, Poland, on July 29, 2024.
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images
British oil major BP on Friday said its chair Helge Lund will soon step down, kickstarting a succession process shortly after the company launched a fundamental strategic reset.
“Having fundamentally reset our strategy, bp’s focus now is on delivering the strategy at pace, improving performance and growing shareholder value,” Lund said in a statement.
“Now is the right time to start the process to find my successor and enable an orderly and seamless handover,” he added.
Lund is expected to step down in 2026. BP said the succession process will be led by Amanda Blanc in her capacity as senior independent director.
Shares of BP traded 2.2% lower on Friday morning. The London-listed firm has lagged its industry rivals in recent years.
BP announced in February that it plans to ramp up annual oil and gas investment to $10 billion through 2027 and slash spending on renewables as part of its new strategic direction.
Analysts have broadly welcomed BP’s renewed focus on hydrocarbons, although the beleaguered energy giant remains under significant pressure from activist investors.
U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management has built a stake of around 5% to become one of BP’s largest shareholders, according to Reuters.
Activist investor Follow This, meanwhile, recently pushed for investors to vote against Lund’s reappointment as chair at BP’s April 17 shareholder meeting in protest over the firm’s recent strategy U-turn.
Lund had previously backed BP’s 2020 strategy, when Bernard Looney was CEO, to boost investment in renewables and cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030.
BP CEO Murray Auchincloss, who took the helm on a permanent basis in January last year, is under significant pressure to reassure investors that the company is on the right track to improve its financial performance.
‘A more clearly defined break’
“Elliott continues to press BP for a sharper, more clearly defined break with the strategy to pivot more quickly toward renewables, that was outlined by Bernard Looney when he was CEO,” Russ Mould, AJ Bell’s investment director, told CNBC via email on Friday.
“Mr Lund was chair then and so he is firmly associated with that plan, which current boss Murray Auchincloss is refining,” he added.
Mould said activist campaigns tend to have “fairly classic thrusts,” such as a change in management or governance, higher shareholder distributions, an overhaul of corporate structure and operational improvements.
“In BP’s case, we now have a shift in capital allocation and a change in management, so it will be interesting to see if this appeases Elliott, though it would be no surprise if it feels more can and should be done,” Mould said.