A large pension fund has addressed a letter to Tesla shareholders recommending that they vote against the reelection of Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch and against Elon Musk’s massive stock package, ahead of Tesla’s shareholder meeting on June 13.
Tesla’s shareholder meeting is coming up in just a few weeks, and it’s currently doing quite a lot to convince shareholders to vote their shares on a couple of critical decisions to the company.
That court ruling looms large over the decisions for Tesla shareholders in this vote, as most of the proposals up for a vote are related to the ruling. There’s the direct vote on reinstating Musk’s pay package, the vote to reelect the company directors whose personal relationships are intertwined with Musk and thus reduce their level of independence, and the vote to move the company’s incorporation to Texas, which was a knee-jerk reaction by Musk after the Delaware Court of Chancery voided his pay package.
Each of the proposals require a simple majority of votes to win, except the proposal to move the company’s incorporation – that requires a majority of all shares outstanding to vote in favor, which is a high bar given that turnout will not be 100%.
Many have chimed in with their opinions, including Tesla itself, which spent ad money to influence the vote, a move we haven’t really seen before. Tesla also put up a website pitching the vote, and Musk and many Tesla-related accounts have been tweeting a lot about getting people to cast their votes – both trying to increase turnout, and to get friendly voters to hopefully cast the vote in their direction.
But now we’ve heard from some of the US’ largest pension funds, those managing New York City’s pension systems, along with a number of other investment groups. In a letter, they’re suggesting that shareholders vote against the pay package and against directors Kimbal Musk (Elon Musk’s brother) and James Murdoch (son of Rupert Murdoch, one of the world’s most influential climate change deniers).
The group sent a letter, written by Brad Lander, the Comptroller of the City of New York, on behalf of several NYC city employees pension funds. NYC pension funds are some of the largest in the US. The letter was also signed onto by SOC Investment Group, Amalgamated Bank, United Church Funds, Nordea Asset Management, SHARE, UNISON, and AkademikerPension (a pension fund for Danish schools).
In it, the group argues that the pay package does not serve Tesla shareholders. It argues that the package won’t have any incentivizing effect, and that it is excessive. It also points out that the reimplementation of the package was decided on in a rushed manner by a single director, which it calls “recklessly fast,” echoing the Delaware Court’s prior decision.
It also calls Musk a “part-time CEO,” saying that the intent of the original reward was so that Musk would focus his time on Tesla for the full ten-year period of time that the reward covered. The letter says: “If this was one of the primary reasons for the 2018 pay package, then it has been an abysmal failure, as six years later Musk’s outside business commitments have only increased.”
Musk currently runs Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, NeuraLink, xAI, Twitter, and the Musk Foundation. He has gained control of or founded several of these companies after the original 2018 stock reward, and observers have noted his excessive commitment to Twitter lately, after spending $44 billion to purchase it which he had to sell Tesla stock to fund.
The letter says that this shows lack of independence from Tesla’s directors, focusing primarily on Kimbal Musk, who is Elon Musk’s brother, and James Murdoch, who is a close friend of Elon, having taken several family vacations together and attending Kimbal’s wedding.
It also describes close relationships with several other board members and the exceptionally high compensation they have received, all of which threaten independence of the Tesla board. Standard corporate ethics suggest that board members should be independent to ensure effective and unbiased direction of the company. But only two board members are up for a vote at this time, and the letter asks shareholders to vote against both of them.
Beyond these arguments, the letter also states that Tesla’s performance has seen a downturn lately, and that that downturn has been related to Musk’s focus on Twitter, where he seems to be spending more time than Tesla. It notes drops in various metrics, financial and otherwise, showing disorganization and lack of leadership, and shows that these metrics have dropped particularly since Musk shifted focus to Twitter.
Many signatories of the same group sent a previous letter in April to board chair Robyn Denholm outlining these concerns and requesting a meeting, but did not receive a response.
Personally, I think the letter makes good points. I think it’s quite clear that there are a lot of problems with Tesla’s corporate governance, particularly after Musk has recently fired or reassigned so many high-level executives. Currently Tesla only shows three people on its corporate governance page, one of whom was recently reassigned to China, leaving only the CFO and “part-time CEO” running the company.
This would be a problem even if the CEO was an exceptional leader who was fully focused on the job and making good decisions, but Musk increasingly seems as if he does not meet that bar.
In particular, firing the entire Supercharger team, despite it being perhaps the most successful team within Tesla and led by one of its most competent executives, Rebecca Tinucci, seems like a poor decision. And that decision seems even worse when learning that the firing wasn’t due to team performance, but due to Musk himself being mad at Tinucci’s refusal to trim her team further, firing her and her entire 500-person team as petty retaliation and causing chaos with Tesla suppliers.
But the most effective point in the letter, I think, is that this pay package doesn’t incentivize any future behavior. Those in favor of the package have stated that it should be given as a reward for meeting the goals laid out in 2018 – but it is now 2024, not 2018.
That means that we have more information than we had in 2018, and particularly recently, that information doesn’t look good. Tesla’s performance lately and in particular the performance of its CEO has ben poor and erratic, and seems increasingly so. So it seems like quite a reach to suggest that shareholders should take $55 billion out of their own pockets (via dilution) – more than its total profits for the last 4 years combined – and give it to the second-richest man in the world with no strings attached.
I say “no strings attached” because the package does not ensure or target any future performance, it merely reinstates a package that was illegally given in the first place. So it can’t help shareholders going forward, since it has no incentives going forward.
It seems like the only way this would “help” Tesla is by retaining a CEO who has become increasingly erratic, who has made threats against his own company, who has directed the spending of the company’s money to influence a vote, who has a too-close relationship with the board, and who has recently taken steps to harm tens of thousands of employees either through haphazard firings (after all, the $55 billion that Musk is asking for could pay each of the 14,000+ employees he just fired a six-figure salary for 40 whole years) or through low morale that continues to affect employees today.
And, importantly, we need a strong Tesla in order to keep the transition to EVs moving at optimal speed. Tesla is one of the few companies with the size and interest to keep pushing the transition forward, as other companies waffle on a transition that is very important for America – and the world. If Tesla’s CEO is acting erratically, that’s a problem for everyone.
Even if you’re not knee-deep into electric bikes like many of us, you very likely may have heard of the e-bike brand SUPER73. The company’s motorcycle culture-inspired electric bikes have proven incredibly popular among teens and young adults, but the heyday of fast and questionably (or clearly) illegal e-bike modes seems to be coming to an end for the brand.
SUPER73 didn’t invent the moped-style electric bike, but it is often credited for kickstarting the boom. The name has become so ubiquitous that even other brands of moto-inspired electric bikes are often erroneously referred to as SUPER73 e-bikes.
Technically, SUPER73s were always intended to be perfectly street-legal electric bikes, and they always shipped in what was known as “Class 2 Mode”. That meant the bikes could top out at 20 mph (32 km/h) and largely met most electric bicycle regulations around the US for the last few years.
However, SUPER73 e-bikes could be quickly and easily unlocked via the company’s own smartphone app, letting riders access Class 3 mode of up to 28 mph (45 km/h) on pedal assist, or even an Off-Road Mode that basically removed all restrictions and allowed faster speeds on throttle-only riding as well. Despite the name, Off-Road Mode was largely used for street riding and turned the bike into something of a mini-motorcycle.
But those days of easily unlocking higher performance are officially gone, with SUPER73 now reacting to new California regulations that put stricter interpretations of e-bike classification laws on the books. Those new regulations, which took effect on January 1, 2025, required any e-bike with a functional throttle to limit its motor assist to just 20 mph. If an e-bike was designed to be modified for faster speed or higher power (such as via a setting change on the bike’s display or in the smartphone app), the bike would no longer be considered a street-legal electric bicycle in California.
SUPER73, which has often found itself at the center of the debate around faster e-bikes, reacted quickly. A major change now results in the higher performance modes being removed from SUPER73’s app. According to a notice on the company’s website, “In light of newly implemented regulations, customers who download and pair the SUPER73 app after January 1, 2025, will not have the ability to access modes other than the Class 2 mode in which the product is sold.”
While the bikes still have the mechanical ability to go faster, SUPER73’s new update basically removes the ability to access that higher performance, essentially limiting its e-bikes to 20 mph on both throttle and pedal assist.
Is there a workaround?
No, SUPER73 has developed an ironclad solution to prevent their e-bikes from being operated in illegal ways.
Just kidding. No, of course this isn’t a perfect solution, but not really due to any fault by SUPER73. There are multiple apps already available that can be used instead of the company’s app, which allow riders to re-access that higher performance. I won’t list them here, but it’s not exactly hard for anyone with an e-bike and internet connection to figure it out.
That doesn’t mean that every SUPER73 e-bike out there is going to be back in its former 30 mph form, and a significant number of riders will likely simply be stuck with new 20 mph speed limits. But we shouldn’t pretend like this is a foolproof system that can’t be defeated. As long as the e-bikes are built in a way that they are physically capable of higher performance (like a chunky 2,000W motor that is software-limited to 750W and 20 mph), the possibility remains that they will be somehow unlocked to access that performance.
It should be noted that such unlocking would still fall outside the regulations of California’s new electric bike laws, but at that point the punishment would likely fall upon the riders themselves instead of the e-bike maker, if it did its part to remove performance unlocking from its native app.
Electrek’s Take
I think that a lot of us could see this as an inevitability, though I’m not sure we expected to see companies come around this quickly, or rolling out updates that covered their e-bikes nationwide instead of just in California.
I agree that in the short term, this will likely have a positive effect on the few bad apples who ruin it for everyone – basically the roving gangs of teens on illegally fast e-bikes. People who ride e-bikes in dangerous ways around other cyclists and pedestrians are a danger, plain and simple.
In the long run though, I still don’t think this is the proper route to go. When you can buy a 125 mph car that weighs as much as a military vehicle and yet it is simply the responsibility of each driver to never exceed barely half of its performance, it seems silly to put so much effort into reducing the speed of bicycles from 28 mph to 20 mph. Is this really the major public safety threat to spend our time and legislative resources on?
I still believe that the better solution combines education and enforcement. It’s simply not that hard. If some snot-nosed kid is riding dangerously in the bike lane, street, or sidewalk, confiscate the bike and slap a fine on his or her parents. But don’t tell me that a responsible adult who is simply trying to get to work efficiently is a menace to society on an e-bike that goes 28 mph instead of 20 mph.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Volkswagen U.S. assembly of all-electric ID.4 flagship in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 2022.
Volkswagen
The new Republican-majority Congress has wasted no time in making its energy priorities clear. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said from the House floor minutes after his reelection, “We have to stop the attacks on liquefied natural gas, pass legislation to eliminate the Green New Deal. … We’re going to expedite new drilling permits, we’re going to save the jobs of our auto manufacturers, and we’re going to do that by ending the ridiculous E.V. mandates.”
Data from the auto industry shows a more complicated story. There are more investments in EVs and related battery technologies in states under the control of Republican governors than in states run by Democrats. The top 10 states for total investments in EV technology, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, are either solidly red or swing states such as Michigan, Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada. Far from help the fortunes of automakers, Trump confidante Elon Musk is on record as saying that repealing EV incentives would be a pill he could swallow, even as CEO of Tesla, because it would hurt other automakers even more.
Amending or possibly repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s sweeping 2022 law that allocates approximately $369 billion over the next decade to clean-energy and climate-related projects, has been a talking point for President-elect Trump and many members of the GOP. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill — saying its subsidies, tax credits, grants and loans are wasteful government overreach — and the party and Trump have since railed against it.
On this year’s campaign trail, Trump said he will “rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.”
He and fellow Republicans have also talked about eliminating the IRA’s $7,500 federal personal tax credit for buying a new electric vehicle, as well as various incentives for private companies investing in manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, EV batteries, heat pumps and other clean-energy products.
But in an interview with CNBC last fall, Speaker Johnson hinted at the potential problem for the GOP now that investments have been made, and job growth continues to climb, across Republican states. He said it would be impossible to “blow up” the IRA, and it would be unwise, since some aspects of the “terrible” legislation had helped the economy. “You’ve got to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer, because there’s a few provisions in there that have helped overall,” Johnson said.
The economic boost that hundreds of IRA-funded projects have given the country, beyond just the EV industry, are predominantly in red states — and the hundreds of thousands of clean-energy jobs linked to the IRA as well as the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. A vast portion of that workforce voted for Republicans in November, and jeopardizing their livelihoods could fuel a balloting backlash.
“The IRA is the quintessential policy that can create jobs, drive economic growth and improve our economy,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group comprising about 10,000 business leaders and investors, “while at the same time giving us the tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
While the clean energy jobs market remains small relative to a total U.S. employment market of roughly 160 million Americans, it has become more than just a blip in the jobs picture. Data for the full year 2024 is not yet available, but according to E2’s Clean Jobs America 2024 report released in September, more than 149,000 clean-energy jobs were created in 2023, accounting for 6.4% of new jobs economy-wide and nearly 60% of total employment across the entire energy sector. Over the past three years, E2 reported, clean-energy jobs increased by 14%, reaching nearly 3.5 million workers nationwide. “Our members and businesses across a lot of sectors are very concerned about the potential of repealing” the IRA, Keefe said.
In the two years since the IRA passed, E2 has tracked private-sector clean-energy projects, including solar, wind, grid electrification, clean vehicles and EV and storage batteries. To date, it has identified 358 major projects in 42 states and investments of nearly $132 billion. More than 60% of the announced projects — representing nearly 80% of the investment and 70% of the jobs — are located in Republican congressional districts.
In November, the Net Zero Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University released a study focused on the domestic and global impacts of tinkering with Biden’s climate bills, in particular, the IRA. “Our scenario analysis shows that U.S. repeal of the IRA would, in the most likely scenario, harm U.S. manufacturing and trade and create up to $80 billion in investment opportunities for other countries, including major U.S. competitors like China,” the study said. “U.S. harm would come in the form of lost factories, lost jobs, lost tax revenue and up to $50 billion in lost exports.”
The fallout of gutting the IRA has not been lost on GOP lawmakers whose states and counties are benefiting from the law’s largesse. In August, 18 House Republicans sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, urging him not to axe the tax credits that have “created good jobs in many parts of the country — including many districts represented by members of our conference.”
Coincidentally, one of the signees, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, is Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor. Another, Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia, has touted the eight clean-energy projects, totaling $7.8 billion in investments and creating 7,222 jobs, the IRA has brought to his district. And the tiny town of Dalton, Georgia, home of the largest solar panel manufacturing plant in the western hemisphere and source of about 2,000 jobs, is in the district represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, a vociferous climate-change skeptic who has nonetheless cheered the factory.
The QCells solar panel manufacturing plant in Dalton, Georgia, U.S., on Monday, May 3, 2021.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
In a survey of nearly 930 business stakeholders conducted in August by E2 and BW Research, more than half (53%) said they would lose business or revenue as a direct result of an IRA repeal and 21% would have to lay off workers.
If Republicans fully repeal the IRA, which would require congressional approval, they “would be shooting themselves in the foot and hurting their own constituents,” said Andrew Reagan, executive director of Clean Energy for America, a nonprofit that advocates for the clean-energy workforce. “You would see not only projects canceled, but job losses,” he said.
West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who will chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee this year, talked in a recent interview with Politico about a focus on rolling back elements of the IRA, including “frivolous” spending, while pushing to keep parts that have created clean-energy jobs. In her state, “some people have taken advantage of this tax relief and are now employing 800 and 1,000 people,” Capito said, “and that’s what this should be all about.”
Union organizing at EV and battery plants
In addition to spurring new job growth, the IRA, Infrastructure Act and CHIPS Act each have provisions ensuring that a significant portion of jobs created go to union members or provide prevailing wages and benefits, apprenticeships and job training to non-union workers. So it’s no surprise that unions are also on the front line in the battle to protect the bills.
Unionization rates in clean energy have surpassed traditional energy employment for the first time, reaching 12.4%, according to a recent Department of Energy report. “That’s a really big deal for us and we want to keep building on that,” said Samantha Smith, strategic advisor for clean energy jobs for the AFL-CIO, which represents more than 12.5 million U.S. workers in manufacturing, construction, mining and other sectors. “We’re going to work to make sure that every job and clean-energy project with this federal funding can be a good union job,” she said. “That is our focus when looking at this legislation and what Congress might do.”
The Laborers’ International Union of North America represents about 530,000 workers in the energy and construction industries. Executive director Brent Booker noted that LIUNA members voted for both Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, but that “none voted to take their jobs away.” And while “cautiously optimistic that the IRA is going to stay in place,” the union “will hold to account this administration to make sure” it does.
A recent report from the Center for Automotive Research outlines the critical workforce needs to meet the demand for EV batteries, which is expected to grow six-fold in the U.S. by 2030. There are a significant skills gaps in the battery industry, the report stated, which will require increased recruitment and training of workers — especially engineers, technicians and assemblers — for years to come.
This paves the way for unions to organize workers at battery plant factories, many of which are joint ventures located in the so-called “battery belt” that stretches from Michigan down to Georgia. In February of last year, the United Auto Workers committed $40 million through 2026 in funds to support non-union autoworkers and battery workers who are organizing across the country, and particularly in the South.
“In the next few years, the electric vehicle battery industry is slated to add tens of thousands of jobs across the country,” the UAW said in announcing the investment. “These jobs will supplement, and in some cases largely replace, existing powertrain jobs in the auto industry. Through a massive new organizing effort, workers will fight to maintain and raise the standard in the emerging battery industry.”
Indeed, just this week, workers at Ford’s $6-billion BlueOval SK EV battery plant in Glendale, Kentucky, a joint venture with South Korea’s SK On, filed with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election.
Clean Energy for America’s Reagan said he assumes that Trump will be true to his America First platform: to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and supply chains, cut consumers’ energy bills in half by increasing domestic energy production and reduce reliance on foreign trade, especially with China. “He can’t do any of those things if he repeals the tax credits or tries to stifle American companies that are creating jobs,” Reagan said. “If he’s going to be successful, he can’t take an adversarial approach to a huge part of our economy.”
Yolo County, California depends on its climate for continued agricultural success. As such, the county’s leaders are taking environmental stewardship seriously by aiming for full carbon neutrality by 2030. To help achieve that goal, they’re putting zero-emission machinery like the Volvo DD25 Electric compactor to work.
We got our first chance to sample the DD25 Electric at Volvo Days last summer, where the all-electric tandem roller’s vibrating drums impressed dealers and end users alike. It was no surprise, then, that when Yolo Country fleet superintendent, Ben Lee, when shopping for a compactor the DD25 Electric was high on his list.
“The DD25 Electric will help us achieve our goals in several ways,” explains Lee. “By reducing emissions, lowering noise levels, being more energy-efficient, improving working conditions and promoting environmentally friendly practices … we’ll use it to compact soil, gravel and other base materials for road and foundation projects, as well as rolling out and leveling asphalt during road construction and resurfacing.”
To help Lee handle those various projects, the Volvo’s drum frequency can be adjusted from 3500 vpm (55 Hz) to 4000 vpm (67 Hz) to cater to different applications and materials.
Getting power to the compactor, too, is something Yolo is considering. “There are some remote areas in the county, so we’re looking into a mobile, self-contained charging unit as well,” explains Lee, apparently referencing the Volvo PU130 mobile battery. “So we wouldn’t have to bring the machine back to the yard each night during a long-term project.”
Yolo County views electric equipment as an essential step in reducing emissions and energy consumption, especially as communities work towards stricter regulations and sustainability goals.
Electrek’s Take
This press release came to us ahead of the devastating wild fires in Southern California that are dominating headlines right now – so much so that I effectively sat on the news for a few days, debating whether or not we should even be talking about a California news story that isn’t about the fires right now.
But I realized: this story is about the fires. Climate change driven by combustion and carbon emissions is driving climate change and that’s making fires like these possible … and I should have run it sooner.