Used car retailer CarMax (NYSE: KMX) is piloting an electric semi truck as a car hauler in California’s San Joaquin Valley.
CarMax is leasing a Freightliner eCascadia from Penske Truck Leasing, and it’s the first to be leased by Penske Truck Leasing as a car hauler.
The eCascadia comes in 315 or 475 kWh configurations and has up to 250 miles of range while carrying approximately a 65,000-pound gross vehicle weight.
The pilot electric semi, which is being used in real-world conditions, can transport up to seven vehicles at one time, and it has a range of around 230 miles. A DC fast charger has been installed at CarMax’s Stockton, California, store.
CarMax has set a goal to achieve a 50% reduction in emissions by 2025, based on a 2018 baseline, and reach its goal of net zero by 2050.
Electrek’s Take
The irony isn’t lost on me that an electric semi truck is now being used to carry what is probably mostly gas cars. But any move to electric is a good move, and seeing CarMax use a Freightliner eCascadia will hopefully inspire more consumers and other retailers to switch to electric.
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
In an email announcing the move, the CEO said that Tesla would continue building Supercharger stations that are currently under construction without further commenting on how the lack of charging team will impact Tesla’s plan to grow the critical EV charging network.
We now learn that there are already direct impacts on planned future Supercharger stations.
Sources familiar with the matter told Electrek that Tesla backed out of four leases for upcoming Supercharger locations in New York: one in Maspeth, South Bronx, two in Queens, and one in Gateway Center, Brooklyn.
These were new stations recently announced to address concerns with overcrowded Supercharger stations in New York.
The problem was partly due to a surge in Tesla vehicles used by Uber drivers due to a new incentive for the city to electrify its ride-sharing fleet.
In order to address the situation, Tesla promised to deploy 100 additional chargers around New York City by the end of the year and even worked directly with Uber to gather data to locate the new stations at optimal locations.
These four new locations represented the bulk of these planned new stations in the city, and they are gone.
Three of the four sites were “power-ready” – as some work was already being done to prepare them to become charging stations for Tesla.
There’s a silver lining. When contacted, Revel, which operates its own fleet of electric taxis and charging stations in New York, expressed interest in these sites because of their location and capacity for high-volume fast charging stations.
Tesla deployed a record number of Superchargers last quarter and now operates 57,579 Superchargers at 6,249 locations around the world.
Electrek’s Take
I’m really perplexed by Tesla firing its charging team. If one thing was a clear success at Tesla, it’s the Supercharger network.
Tesla had just won the charging standard battle – making NACS the new standard in North America and all other automakers adopting and jumping onboard with the Supercharger network.
Now more than ever, Tesla needs to grow the network to support the onboarding of non-Tesla EVs and its own growing fleet. And yet, Tesla fired the team instead and slowed down Supercharger installations – if not stopped entirely.
This is a bearish move if I have ever seen one.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Changpeng Zhao, former chief executive officer of Binance, arrives at federal court in Seattle, Washington, US, on Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
David Ryder | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Binance’s billionaire founder Changpeng Zhao was sentenced to four months in prison on Tuesday, after pleading guilty to charges of enabling money laundering at his crypto exchange.
“You had the wherewithal, the finance capabilities, and the people power to make sure that every single regulation had to be complied with, and so you failed at that opportunity,” U.S. District Judge Richard Jones said to Zhao in a Seattle federal court, according to a Reuters report.
The sentence handed down to the former Binance chief was significantly less than the three years that federal prosecutors had been seeking for him. The defense had asked for five months of probation. The sentencing guidelines called for a prison term of 12 to 18 months.
“I’m sorry,” Zhao told the judge before receiving his sentence, per Reuters.
“I believe the first step of taking responsibility is to fully recognize the mistakes,” Zhao reportedly said earlier Tuesday in court. “Here I failed to implement an adequate anti-money laundering program… I realize now the seriousness of that mistake.”
In November, Zhao, commonly known as CZ, struck a deal with the U.S. government to resolve a multiyear investigation into Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. As part of the settlement, Zhao stepped down as the company’s CEO. Though he is no longer running the company, Zhao is widely reported to have an estimated 90% stake in Binance.
Zhao, who wore a dark navy suit with a light blue tie to court, is accused of willfully failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering program as required by the Bank Secrecy Act, and of allowing Binance to process transactions involving proceeds of unlawful activity, including between Americans and individuals in sanctions jurisdictions.
The U.S. ordered Binance to pay $4.3 billion in fines and forfeiture. Zhao agreed to pay a $50 million fine.
The action against Binance and its founder was a joint effort by the Department of Justice, the CFTC and the Treasury Department, though the SEC was notably absent.
A Binance spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC that the crypto exchange is “proud of the culture of compliance, security, and transparency we have created over the past several years, and we look forward to building on that culture as we continue to evolve.”
Changpeng Zhao, former chief executive officer of Binance, arrives at federal court in Seattle, Washington, US, on Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
David Ryder | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The spokesperson said the company has made “considerable compliance enhancements,” including with regards to anti-money laundering detection and “hiring key compliance personnel.”
A lawyer for Zhao did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
Prosecutors say Zhao violated U.S. law on an “unprecedented scale,” and that he had a “deliberate disregard” for Binance’s legal responsibilities.
In a memorandum on Apr. 23, prosecutors said that under Zhao’s control, Binance operated on a “Wild West” model.
“Zhao bet that he would not get caught, and that if he did, the consequences would not be as serious as the crime,” the memorandum stated. “But Zhao was caught, and now the Court will decide what price Zhao should pay for his crimes.”
Zhao has gotten off much easier than former crypto rival Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and ex-CEO of FTX.
Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison for crimes connected to the operation of his crypto exchange. Unlike Zhao and the charges brought against Binance, Bankman-Fried’s bankrupt exchange faced allegations of fraud and misuse of customers funds.
Braden Perry, a former senior trial lawyer for the CFTC, said that behavior is typically viewed as more deceitful and financially damaging to a broader array of people than compliance failures.
“CZ’s case seems to focus on regulatory and compliance failures, while SBF’s case hinges on direct financial misconduct and deception,” continued Perry. “Compliance failures, while serious, might be seen as a failure of oversight rather than active malfeasance.”
Comments