A new bill submitted to the Oregon Legislative Assembly seeks to ban street-legal Class 3 electric bicycles from bike lanes in the state.
Class 3 electric bicycles include those that can reach motor-assisted speeds of up to 28 mph (45 km/h), whereas Class 1 and 2 electric bicycles can only reach 20 mph (32 km/h) under motor assist.
Under Senate Bill 471, the proposed legislation would make it an offense if a rider “operates a moped or a Class 3 electric assisted bicycle upon a sidewalk, a bicycle path or a bicycle lane.” Under Oregon law, traditional pedal bicycles can be legally operated on sidewalks unless restricted by a local ordinance, but e-bikes are already banned from operating on sidewalks.
Thus, the proposed legislation is effectively a ban on electric bikes capable of speeds exceeding 20 mph from being used in bike lanes. Instead, such bikes would only be permitted for use on public roadways.
E-bikes like this Tern Quick Haul could be banned in Oregon bike lanes under proposed new legislation
In addition, Section 2 of the bill seeks to remove key protections for cyclists operating such 20+ mph electric bikes in bike lanes. Under current law, a motorist can be cited for failing to yield right of way to a cyclist in a bike lane when the motorist crosses over the bike lane, such as when crossing into a driveway, parking lot, etc.
The proposed legislation would remove the requirement for motorists to yield the right of way to cyclists on Class 3 e-bikes in bike lanes.
It should be noted that drivers cannot visually distinguish a Class 3 e-bike from other classes of e-bikes being ridden in a bike lane because the difference is performance-based.
Electrek’s Take
Sure, I support this law, as long as we can apply the logic equally. If the logic goes that Class 3 (28 mph maximum) e-bikes have the ability to be ridden faster than much of the traffic flow in a bike lane and thus should be banned in such bike lanes, then we might as well just ban cars capable of highway speeds from being operated on city streets. “Can your car go faster than 40 mph? Sorry, you know the rules. Keep that thing off city streets.”
It makes sense, right? Same logic. If it *can* go faster, it shouldn’t be allowed to operate there at all.
I mean, if a 60 lb e-bike that has the potential to go 8 mph faster than another e-bike is such a menace to public health and safety, then oh lordy what must we think of 5,000 lb vehicles that can easily exceed 120 mph with just a two-inch deviation of a distracted driver’s big toe? Surely we’ll be kicking those out of cities any day now, right? Right, guys? Guys…?
Ok, let’s get serious now. This law is awful and the legislators that conjured it up should be put on a 21 mph bicycle and forced to spend a couple minutes riding with their handlebar inches from 40+ mph cars to truly understand what real danger is. Then let’s hear them try to tell us how it’s a Class 3 e-bike that is the true danger.
I’m not trying to say that we should completely ignore that sometimes people get hit by an e-bike. It happens. It has even been lethal on exceedingly rare occasions. But you know what happens on regular occasions? Cyclists and pedestrians getting hit and killed by cars. So instead of spending legislative effort trying to push e-bikes back out onto roads, maybe we should expend some effort keeping car fenders off of cyclists’ bodies. Or invest in more bike lanes. Or increase enforcement of traffic violations for all road users. Or increase awareness education for drivers and riders alike. There are so many good answers, but none of them can be found in this bill.
President Donald Trump wants to revive the struggling coal industry in the U.S. by deploying plants to power the data centers that the Big Tech companies are building to train artificial intelligence.
Trump issued an executive order in April that directed his Cabinet to find areas of the U.S. where coal-powered infrastructure is available to support AI data centers and determine whether the infrastructure can be expanded to meet the growing electricity demand from the nation’s tech sector.
Trump has repeatedly promoted coal as power source for data centers. The president told the World Economic Forum in January that he would approve power plants for AI through emergency declaration, calling on the tech companies to use coal as a backup power source.
“They can fuel it with anything they want, and they may have coal as a backup — good, clean coal,” the president said.
Trump’s push to deploy coal runs afoul of the tech companies’ environmental goals. In the short-term, the industry’s power needs may inadvertently be extending the life of existing coal plants.
Coal produces more carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of power than any other energy source in the U.S. with the exception of oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. The tech industry has invested billions of dollars to expand renewable energy and is increasingly turning to nuclear power as a way to meet its growing electricity demand while trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that fuel climate change.
For coal miners, Trump’s push is a potential lifeline. The industry has been in decline as coal plants are being retired in the U.S. About 16% of U.S. electricity generation came from burning coal in 2023, down from 51% in 2001, according to EIA data.
Peabody Energy CEO James Grech, who attended Trump’s executive order ceremony at the White House, said “coal plants can shoulder a heavier load of meeting U.S. generation demands, including multiple years of data center growth.” Peabody is one of the largest coal producers in the U.S.
Grech said coal plants should ramp up how much power they dispatch. The nation’s coal fleet is dispatching about 42% of its maximum capacity right now, compared to a historical average of 72%, the CEO told analysts on the company’s May 6 earnings call.
“We believe that all coal-powered generators need to defer U.S. coal plant retirements as the situation on the ground has clearly changed,” Grech said. “We believe generators should un-retire coal plants that have recently been mothballed.”
Tech sector reaction
There is a growing acknowledgment within the tech industry that fossil fuel generation will be needed to help meet the electricity demand from AI. But the focus is on natural gas, which emits less half the CO2 of coal per kilowatt hour of power, according the the EIA.
“To have the energy we need for the grid, it’s going to take an all of the above approach for a period of time,” Kevin Miller, Amazon’s vice president of global data centers, said during a panel discussion at conference of tech and oil and gas executives in Oklahoma City last month.
“We’re not surprised by the fact that we’re going to need to add some thermal generation to meet the needs in the short term,” Miller said.
Thermal generation is a code word for gas, said Nat Sahlstrom, chief energy officer at Tract, a Denver-based company that secures land, infrastructure and power resources for data centers. Sahlstrom previously led Amazon’s energy, water and sustainability teams.
Executives at Amazon, Nvidia and Anthropic would not commit to using coal, mostly dodging the question when asked during the panel at the Oklahoma City conference.
“It’s never a simple answer,” Amazon’s Miller said. “It is a combination of where’s the energy available, what are other alternatives.”
Nvidia is able to be agnostic about what type of power is used because of the position the chipmaker occupies on the AI value chain, said Josh Parker, the company’s senior director of corporate sustainability. “Thankfully, we leave most of those decisions up to our customers.”
Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark said there are a broader set of options available than just coal. “We would certainly consider it but I don’t know if I’d say it’s at the top of our list.”
Sahlstrom said Trump’s executive order seems like a “dog whistle” to coal mining constituents. There is a big difference between looking at existing infrastructure and “actually building new power plants that are cost competitive and are going to be existing 30 to 40 years from now,” the Tract executive said.
Coal is being displaced by renewables, natural gas and existing nuclear as coal plants face increasingly difficult economics, Sahlstrom said. “Coal has kind of found itself without a job,” he said.
“I do not see the hyperscale community going out and signing long term commitments for new coal plants,” the former Amazon executive said. (The tech companies ramping up AI are frequently referred to as “hyperscalers.”)
“I would be shocked if I saw something like that happen,” Sahlstrom said.
Coal retirements strain grid
But coal plant retirements are creating a real challenge for the grid as electricity demand is increasing due to data centers, re-industrialization and the broader electrification of the economy.
The largest grid in the nation, the PJM Interconnection, has forecast electricity demand could surge 40% by 2039. PJM warned in 2023 that 40 gigawatts of existing power generation, mostly coal, is at risk of retirement by 2030, which represents about 21% of PJM’s installed capacity.
Data centers will temporarily prolong coal demand as utilities scramble to maintain grid reliability, delaying their decarbonization goals, according to a Moody’s report from last October. Utilities have already postponed the retirement of coal plants totaling about 39 gigawatts of power, according to data from the National Mining Association.
“If we want to grow America’s electricity production meaningfully over the next five or ten years, we [have] got to stop closing coal plants,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC’s “Money Movers” last month.
But natural gas and renewables are the future, Sahlstrom said. Some 60% of the power sector’s emissions reductions over the past 20 years are due to gas displacing coal, with the remainder coming from renewables, Sahlstrom said.
“That’s a pretty powerful combination, and it’s hard for me to see people going backwards by putting more coal into the mix, particularly if you’re a hyperscale customer who has net-zero carbon goals,” he said.
A federal court judge in Michigan has placed the once-promising electric truck brand Bollinger Motors’ assets into receivership following claims that the company’s owners still owe its founder, Robert Bollinger, more than $10 million.
Now, Automotive News is reporting on some of the more convoluted details of the Mullen purchase deal, with Robert (for ease of distinguishing the man from the brand) claiming that Mullen Automotive owes him more than $10 million for a loan he made to the company in 2024.
Just how Robert ended up giving Mullen Automotive $10 million to take his eponymous truck brand off his hands is probably one of those capitalistic mysteries that I’ll never understand, but Mullen’s response was perfectly clear: they didn’t even bother to show up to court.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Bollinger claims that at least two suppliers are also suing Mullen for unpaid debts. As such, the Honorable Terrence G. Berg has put the Bollinger brand into receivership, and its assets have been frozen in preparation for everything being liquidated. Worse, for Bollinger, the official court filings reveal a company that is really very much doing not awesome:
The testimony and evidence—which Defendant’s counsel conceded accurately reflected Defendant’s finances—showed that Defendant is in crisis. For months Defendant has owed more than twenty million dollars to suppliers, contractors, service providers, and owners of physical space. These debts are owed to parties who are critical for Defendant’s functioning. CEO Bryan Chambers testified that Defendant was locked out of its production facilities on May 5, 2025, and that the owner of the production facilities was seeking to permanently evict Defendant. The Court heard that Defendant had been prevented from accessing its critical manufacturing accounting system for a short time at the end of April 2025, before making a partial payment to restart services.
You can read the full court decision, which I’ve embedded here, below. Once you’ve taken it all in, feel free to rush into the comments to say you told me so, since I really thought hoped the Bollinger B1 had a shot. Silly me.
Mammoth Solar, a 1.3 gigawatt (GW) solar farm in northern Indiana, is now powering into its biggest construction phase yet, cementing its place as one of the largest solar projects in the US.
The solar farm is set to increase Indiana’s solar capacity by more than 20% once it’s fully online. And with construction ramping up this month, developer Doral Renewables has given Bechtel Full Notice to Proceed on the design, engineering, and construction of three major phases of the project: Mammoth South, Mammoth Central I, and Mammoth Central II. Together, these phases will generate 900 MW of clean energy.
That’s enough electricity to power around 200,000 homes with clean energy, helping Indiana shift away from fossil fuels while boosting the local economy.
Construction is already underway, and over the next two years, Bechtel will install around 2 million solar panels, with about half of them made in the US. The company is also handling all engineering, procurement, and construction work, using its digital project management tools and autonomous tech to keep everything on track.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
At the peak of the buildout, Mammoth Solar is expected to create over 1,200 jobs, with at least 15% of those set aside for apprenticeships.
Bechtel says its success will hinge on strong collaboration with local trades and vendors. The company is working closely with craft professionals and is committed to being a reliable community partner throughout construction.
Once the solar farm is complete in 2027, Doral Renewables plans to roll out agrivoltaics across the site. That means livestock grazing and crop cultivation will happen right alongside energy production, giving farmers in the area a way to keep working their land while supporting clean energy development.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. To make sure you 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 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. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.