Connect with us

Published

on

Tesla has updated its Model Y EPA range estimates, lowering the range of its Long Range and Performance models by 6% in its online configurator.

Specifically, the Model Y Long Range is down to 310 miles from 330, and the Model Y Performance is down to 285 miles from 303.

The cheapest Model Y, the Model Y Rear-Wheel Drive, which was introduced in the US in October, was not affected by the changes and retains its 260-mile range rating.

All three models have had no change in pricing since before the changes. The only changes we can see are the range estimates (and the two new colors).

We don’t know why Tesla has changed its range estimates, but it could have something to do with a change in the way Tesla does its EPA testing.

It has long been known that Tesla “vastly” overstates its range on its cars. While it is possible to meet EPA estimates if you drive efficiently (and I often do, or get close), Tesla tends to do disproportionately worse in real-world range tests than all other manufacturers, on a level playing field.

EPA tests allows some amount of discretion on the manufacturers’ part to raise or lower their range estimates by employing additional tests and applying an “adjustment factor.” Some manufacturers even apply a voluntary reduction to lower their range estimates, so that drivers are more likely to exceed estimates than come up short.

You can see Tesla’s overstatement for yourself: in a Tesla, charge your car up to 300 miles of range, then tell your car to navigate to somewhere that’s, say, 260 miles away. Your car will route you through a Supercharger, because Tesla’s real range estimate knows that its stated ranges are unrealistic.

So these ~6% changes won’t quite make up for all of Tesla’s range overstatement, but will bring the numbers closer to a realistic point.

However, this is only for two trims of the Model Y. We don’t know if Tesla’s other vehicles will end up having similar range estimate changes soon, although they all have suffered from the same range overstatement issue. So we would hope/expect to see corrections for other Tesla vehicles soon as well.

Electrek’s Take

At the end of the day, these range changes probably don’t really matter much. We don’t know what changed to get us here (and the company does not have a communications department to clarify changes like these when they happen), but Tesla tends to raise and lower the ranges of its cars randomly without any apparent physical changes to the battery, so really, nothing probably changed on the cars themselves.

Range is a fuzzy number anyway, meant to give a general idea of how far you can go, but can’t possibly take into account every situation in a single number. The phrase “Your Mileage May Vary” isn’t just informal slang – it originally applied to vehicle mileage, to describe how people will get different MPG in different situations. So, too, with range.

And frankly, I’m pretty tired of everyone treating range as the end-all-be-all of EV specs anyway. So while I dislike Tesla’s constant overstatement of range, making people think they need more range than they actually do and leading to ever-increasing range numbers beyond what’s realistically necessary (and leading to fewer larger, heavier, more expensive EVs in a constrained battery production landscape), I kind of do like when it randomly changes the range of its cars, showing everyone that the numbers are all made up anyway and you probably shouldn’t take them too seriously.

What’s more important is: learning to drive efficiently (if you need to go farther, slow down a bit), and ensuring that there are enough DC fast charge stations out there to give people a boost when they need it. If we all focus more on those things, then range will be something that we rarely need to think about anyway.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Greenpeace ordered to pay more than $660 million over Dakota Access Pipeline protests

Published

on

By

Greenpeace ordered to pay more than 0 million over Dakota Access Pipeline protests

The Greenpeace logo on the green ecological awareness stand of the association in Lyon, France, on Oct. 23, 2024.

Elsa Biyick | Afp | Getty Images

A jury on Wednesday ordered environmental campaign group Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Texas-based oil company Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

A nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota, reached a verdict after roughly two days of deliberations. The outcome found Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars over actions taken to prevent the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago.

It marks an extraordinary legal blow for Greenpeace, which had previously warned that it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case. The environmental advocacy group said it intends to appeal the verdict.

“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” Greenpeace U.S. interim executive director Sushma Raman said in a statement published Wednesday.

“It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponise our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” Raman said.

Greenpeace has described Energy Transfer’s case as a clear-cut example of SLAPPs, referring to a lawsuit designed to bury activist groups in legal fees and ultimately silence dissent. SLAPP is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

Energy Transfer said the jury verdict was a “win” for “Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law,” according to The Associated Press, citing a statement from the company.

“While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,” the company added.

A spokesperson for Energy Transfer was not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC on Thursday morning.

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon’s missing billions, Tesla terrorism, bots rig surveys, and a Nissan battery deal

Published

on

By

Elon's missing billions, Tesla terrorism, bots rig surveys, and a Nissan battery deal

Is Elon Musk using the missing $1.4B to fund anti-Tesla protests as part of a massive false flag operation that will give him control of both the police and the courts? There’s absolutely ZERO evidence to support that idea (plus: I just made it up), but it’s 2025 and that means anything goes on today’s bats**t episode of Quick Charge!

If there’s one thing narcissists love it’s playing victim, and the guy who asked everyone at Trump’s inauguration if they’s seen Kyle and spent the last decade stacking billions by failing to deliver on a mission to mars, an all-electric roadster, an underground super-speedway, and a self-driving car seems to think it’s someone else’s fault that people don’t like him. We talk through the state of that debacle along with news from two credible car companies, and I predict Volvo will have the first mainstream L3 car in America – enjoy!

Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple PodcastsSpotifyTuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.

New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump’s US Commerce Secretary, who owns Tesla stocks, publicly recommends to buy TSLA

Published

on

By

Trump's US Commerce Secretary, who owns Tesla stocks, publicly recommends to buy TSLA

Trump’s US Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who indirectly owns Tesla (TSLA) stocks through his firm, has publicly recommended buying Tesla stocks today.

This is likely the first time that a sitting US Commerce Secretary publicly recommends to buy a specific stock.

The circumstances in which this first is happening are genuinely astonishing.

Lutnick is known for his multi-billion-dollar stake and long-time leadership at the investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Starting in 2022, Cantor Fitzgerald began to buy Tesla stocks and significantly increased its investment in the automaker in 2024 during a bull run:

After Trump won the election last year with the help of a $250 million political donation from Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO started to recommend Lutnick for the significant role of Secretary of the Treasury. He tweeted:

My view fwiw is that Bessent is a business-as-usual choice, whereas Howard Lutnick will actually enact change. Business-as-usual is driving America bankrupt, so we need change one way or another,”

Trump ended up going for Bessent, but Lutnick still managed to land the role of Secretary of Commerce – with the help of Musk’s push.

After being nominated by Trump, Lutnick said that he would be divesting from his holdings, which are mainly linked to Cantor Fitzgerald, within 90 days.

The 90 days are not up yet, but there is no update on whether he has started divesting yet.

Today, he went on Fox News and recommended viewers buy Tesla stocks:

“I think if you want to learn something on this show tonight, buy Tesla. It’s unbelievable that this guy’s stock is this cheap. It’ll never be this cheap again,”

Here’s the video:

The blatant stock pump comes after Tesla’s stock lost more than 40% of its value so far this year.

Musk uses 238 million Tesla shares worth over $55 billion as collateral for personal loans. If Tesla’s stock goes too low, he could potentially be forced to sell his shares to cover the debt.

Furthermore, on the analyst side, Cantor Fitzgerald just upgraded Tesla’s stock to a buy earlier this week – raising their price target to $425 a share. Tesla’s stock closed at $235.86 today.

Howard Lutnick’s son, Brandon, is now in charge of Cantor Fitzgerald as Chairman.

Here’s a summary of Cantor Fitzgerald’s Tesla holdings:

  • Early 2022: The firm held a very small position (only ~8,400 Tesla shares in Q1 2022)​ but rapidly increased to about 297,000 shares by Q3 2022 (worth ~$79 million at the time)​. This large buy-in during mid-2022 marked a significant ramp-up in their Tesla exposure.
  • Late 2022: By the end of 2022, Cantor dramatically cut back its stake – holding roughly 72,000 shares in Q4 2022​. This reduction from nearly 300k shares the prior quarter coincided with a steep drop in Tesla’s stock price in late 2022 (shares fell by roughly 50% during Q4 2022).
  • 2023: Throughout 2023, Cantor Fitzgerald kept a modest Tesla position, fluctuating in the tens of thousands of shares. For example, they reported ~44,000 shares in Q1 2023, increased to 91,000 by Q2 2023, then adjusted to 56,000 in Q3 2023 and 83,000 by Q4 2023​.
  • These moves suggest active trading around Tesla’s short-term moves, with no huge long-only stake during 2023. Notably, it appears Cantor completely exited Tesla in early 2024 – Tesla was not listed in their Q1–Q2 2024 13F filings, implying they sold off the remaining shares during that period (when Tesla’s price rallied to local highs).
  • Re-entry in 2024: In the second half of 2024, Cantor Fitzgerald made a bold re-entry into Tesla. Their holdings surged to about 1.2 million shares in Q3 2024 (valued ~$307 million as of September 30, 2024). This coincided with a mid-2024 pullback in Tesla’s stock price, suggesting Cantor bought the dip. By the end of 2024, they trimmed the position down to ~740,000 shares (from 1.2M), likely taking profits after Tesla’s price rallied late in the year​.

Electrek’s Take

I mean, wow. This is something else.

The fact alone that a US secretary would recommend buying a specific stock is despicable, but it’s even more insane when it is the stock behind the fortune of Elon Musk, who has a relationship with Lutnick.

Lutnick’s Cantor invests in Tesla -> Musk invests in Trump -> Trump appoints Lutnick at Musk’s recommendation -> Tesla’s stock crash –> Trump recommends buying Tesla cars –> Lutnicks recommends buying Tesla stocks.

I’m no lawyer so I’m not going to claim whether this is legal or not, but it’s certainly not ethical.

Tesla must be really struggling if that’s what they are doing now: using US officials to promote Tesla’s stocks.

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

Continue Reading

Trending