Connect with us

Published

on

With Tesla’s shareholder meeting still hours away, Tesla CEO Elon Musk shared charts suggesting that shareholders have approved two controversial ballot measures.

With Tesla’s shareholder meeting coming tomorrow, Tesla has been spending the last several weeks campaigning hard to get shareholders to vote. There are multiple shareholder proposals on the ballot, along with votes to reapprove two of Tesla’s board members who have been much criticized for their close ties to Elon Musk – Kimbal Musk, Elon’s brother; and James Murdoch, a friend of Elon and son of Rupert Murdoch, one of the world’s most prominent climate deniers.

The other shareholder proposals are interesting, but everyone’s attention has been on two in particular: whether to reapprove Musk’s previously-voided $55 billion pay package and whether to redomicile the company to Texas from Delaware.

Why this all started

These proposals date back quite some ways, with Tesla shareholders approving a massive compensation package for the CEO in 2018.

However, that package was later voided in the Delaware Court of Chancery, as it was found to be improperly given. The court found that Tesla’s board was not independent enough (the two board members mentioned above were given as examples of non-independent board members), and that Tesla did not properly inform shareholders of the details of the deal.

In the wake of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision about his illegal pay package, Musk immediately threatened to move the headquarters to Texas.

Soon after that, the Tesla board (with many of the same members as 2018, though also with some new ones) decided to bring this question of Musk’s pay back to current shareholders (with some of the same shareholders as 2018, but many new ones), along with the question over whether to move the company’s state of incorporation to Texas, rather than Delaware.

Why Delaware, anyway?

Delaware is an extremely popular state for companies to incorporate in – with a majority of US businesses, both large and small, choosing it to incorporate – as it is quite business-friendly with numerous benefits for businesses that incorporate there.

We spoke with Samantha Crispin, a Mergers & Acquisitions lawyer with Baker Botts, this week in advance of the vote, who told us that one of the main draws of Delaware is its many years of established caselaw which means businesses have more predictable outcomes in the case of lawsuits.

However, Crispin said, lately, some other states, primarily Texas and Nevada, have been trying to position themselves as options for businesses to incorporate in, though neither has nearly the history and established processes as Delaware does. Texas wants to establish a set of business-friendly courts, but those courts have not yet been established, which means there is no history of caselaw to draw on.

The campaigning process

For the last several weeks, Tesla has been pushing the vote – even spending ad money to influence shareholders to vote in favor of the pay and redomiciling proposals.

Part of the reason for this is because while the pay package only requires 50% of votes cast to pass, the redomiciling proposal requires 50% of total shares outstanding. So if turnout is low, then there’s no way the latter can pass, even if the former still can.

And the discussion was quite heated – Tesla shared statements from many prominent investors in support of the proposals, though we also saw major pension funds and proxy advisory firms recommending that shareholders vote against.

The deadline to vote remotely was just before midnight, June 12, Central time. It is still possible to vote shares in person tomorrow, physically at the shareholder meeting in Texas, but most of the counting will have been done by then.

Musk leaks results of upcoming vote

So tonight, a couple hours before the deadline, Musk shared what he claimed are the tentative results of the vote on twitter:

Musk states that “both” resolutions are passing, but leaves out multiple other resolutions that are on the ballot – ones about director term length, simple majority voting, anti-harassment and discrimination reporting, collective bargaining, electromagnetic radiation, sustainability metrics, and mineral sourcing.

And while the charts aren’t all that precise, a few interesting trends are notable here.

First, there are significantly fewer votes in favor of the compensation package than the move to Texas. Currently about 2 billion shares voted for the Texas move, which is enough to pass the ~1.6 billion threshold for the vote to succeed (out of ~3.2 billion shares outstanding), but only about 1.35 billion voted for Musk’s pay package.

So Musk himself may be less popular than the knee-jerk Texas move he proposed. Part of that difference is accounted for by Musk’s 411 million shares, which aren’t allowed to vote on his own pay package, but that still leaves a gulf of several hundred million shares. We don’t know the total number of shares that weren’t allowed to vote on this measure, so we can’t really draw a conclusion there.

Second, there is a sharp turn upward on June 12, which suggests that many shares waited until the very last day to vote – and that those last-day voters were much more likely to be in favor of each proposal, as there is no similar last-day upturn of “no” votes.

WSJ reported that many of these last votes are accounted for by Vanguard and Blackrock, both of whom waited until the last minute to cast their votes.

Third, the total number of shares voted is somewhere on the order of ~2.2 billion, which is still only a ~70% turnout, which is high but not hugely higher than turnout has been in the past (63% is the previous high-water mark). This suggests that all the campaigning for turnout had some, but still relatively little effect at turning out more votes.

But if we assume that campaigning resulted in about a ~10% turnout boost, that’s some 300 million votes, and could have made the difference on either vote (which both seem like they passed by about that margin).

It’s also quite rare for any company to see shareholders vote against a board recommendation. Despite that these measures both passed, they each saw significant resistance, much higher than generally expected from corporate proceedings.

Some of this might change tomorrow with votes cast at the shareholder meeting itself – if many voters waited until the last moment remotely, there might be more who wait until the last moment tomorrow. And it is still possible for shareholders to change their votes up until the shareholder meeting happens, so things could (but are unlikely to) change.

But if these charts are to be believed, each of these proposals has already gathered enough votes to be a “guaranteed win” (the line for the pay package is lower due to the exclusion of Musk’s shares – and seemingly the exclusion of other shares, given the line is ~600 million shares lower than the line for the Texas move).

What’s next?

You’d think that was the end of the article, but it’s not. Despite this vote finally being (almost) behind us, there are bound to be many legal challenges ahead.

The vote on the pay package can be thought more in an advisory capacity than anything. Tesla says it will appeal the original decision in Delaware, regardless of whether the Texas move passes. It will surely use today’s vote as evidence in that case, stating that shareholders, even when fully informed, are still in favor of the package.

But these proposals may be challenged in the same way as the original proposal was. There are still several members of the Tesla board who are close to Musk, and therefore aren’t particularly “independent” directors, which is thought of as important in corporate ethics. And Tesla did campaign heavily in favor of specific options to the point of spending ad money for it, which seems… sketchy.

And the very tweet we’re talking about in this article might come up in legal cases as well. Musk’s leaking of the vote – which he did both today just before the remote deadline, and a few days ago – is kind of a no-no. Disney did the same for a shareholder vote recently, and the ethics of that were questioned.

The problem is, leaks can influence a vote – and given the number of votes required to make both proposals successful only came in after Musk leaked results, that only gives more credence to the idea that these votes might have been influenced.

And then there’s the matter of the lawyers who won the compensation-voiding case in the first place. After saving the company’s shareholders $55 billion, those lawyers have asked for a $6 billion fee – a relatively low percentage as far as lawyers’ fees go, but many balk at the idea of paying a small group of lawyers so much money (after all, no single person’s effort is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, much less $55 billion… right?).

To say nothing of other possible lawsuits or SEC investigations that might be filed over the actions or statements made in the run-up to this vote.

The fact is, this situation is something we really haven’t seen before. Legal observers aren’t sure where this will go from here, and many in the world of corporate law are interested to see how it turns out.

The one thing everyone knows, though, is that this will drag on for quite some time. So grab your popcorn and buckle up, folks.

Electrek’s Take

Personally, these are both proposals that do not strike me as particularly good governance.

Spending $55 billion on a CEO who has been distracted for years and whose main actions since returning his focus to Tesla have been to fire everyone including important leadership and successful teams, push back an all-important affordable car project and holding Tesla’s AI projects hostage while shifting both resources and staff from Tesla to his private AI company, even as he claims that AI is the future of Tesla.

It doesn’t seem like money well spent, given that that same amount of money could be spent paying six-figure salaries to every last one of the ~14,000 fired employees… for 40 whole years.

I’d certainly prefer the collective effort of all those smart folks to 1/7th of the attention of a guy who has seemed more interested in advocating for the policies of a climate denying political party (that recently got expelled from the anti-immigrant EU party for being too racist even for them) than he has in running his largest company.

As for the other proposal, moving to Texas is a question worth considering, but it’s just too premature given the long history of caselaw in Delaware. This is not the case with Texas, which is only just establishing the business courts that it’s trying to lure corporations to redomicile with. Texas says it will be very business-friendly, but we just don’t have any evidence other than statements to that effect.

So these are conversations worth having, but they weren’t had – this decision was made as a knee-jerk reaction by a spurned egomaniac, not after cold calculation of the benefits for the corporation.

But, here’s the rub. Those who have lost confidence in Musk’s ability to lead the company are disproportionately likely to have sold their shares already, especially while watching them slide in value more than 50% from TSLA’s highs (as Musk himself has repeatedly sold huge chunks of shares), and by almost 30% in this year alone.

This means that those who still hold shares would be disproportionately likely to vote in favor of the package.

Despite to this self-selecting effect, Musk may take this vote as a vote of confidence in his leadership – when the true vote of confidence in his leadership is reflected in the stock slide in recent times, with more people selling than holding.

I think it’s quite clear that Musk’s recent actions, just a small selection of which were mentioned earlier in this Take, are not beneficial for Tesla’s health in either the long or short term. He’s too distracted with his other companies, with stroking his ego through his misguided twitter acquisition, and with acting as a warrior in any number of culture wars that are at best irrelevant, if not actively harmful, to his largest company’s success. And when the Eye of Sauro… I mean, Musk aims back in the direction of Tesla, he makes wild decisions that do not seem well-considered.

This is not what I would call the behavior of a quality CEO, and while some of us aren’t financially invested in the decisions made by Tesla, all of us in the world are invested in what happens in the EV industry, of which Tesla is an outsized player. It is necessary for the world that we electrify transport rapidly to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and Tesla has been the primary driver of moving the world towards sustainable transport for several years now.

But for some time now, that mission does not seem to be Musk’s primary focus, and that’s bad for EVs broadly, and bad for Tesla specifically.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

The days of superfast SUPER73 e-bikes are over… sort of

Published

on

By

The days of superfast SUPER73 e-bikes are over... sort of

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.

My wife and I riding a pair of SUPER73 e-bikes. She’s a menace, alright. But it’s unrelated to the e-bike.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Why Trump and GOP attacks on IRA can’t score a clean sweep in red states

Published

on

By

Why Trump and GOP attacks on IRA can't score a clean sweep in red states

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.

House Speaker Mike Johnson: We want to expand upon Trump-era tax cuts & do massive regulatory reform

“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.” 

Continue Reading

Environment

Volvo DD25 Electric compactor gets to work in Yolo County, California

Published

on

By

Volvo DD25 Electric compactor gets to work in Yolo County, California

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.

The DD25 Electric offers other benefits, as well – like a 20 kWh 48V battery that offers up between six and eight hours of continuous operation. That’s could be several shifts in the kind of conditions Yolo’s work crews will encounter, meaning it will only have to get put to bed (Volvo recommend overnight AC charging) two or three times a week.

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

Ed Galindo, E-Mobility Product Manager at VCES, educates Yolo employees; via Volvo CE.

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.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Volvo CE.

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

Continue Reading

Trending