Connect with us

Published

on

Iowa is about to adopt an additional “electric fuel excise tax” on July 1, meaning EVs in the state will now pay “fuel” taxes two different ways, whereas gas cars only pay one – and both of these taxes are higher than what a gas car pays.

A large number of states have implemented misguided and excessive “EV fees” to “make up” for shortfalls in road budgets, with the theory that EVs are somehow skipping out on their fair share. Currently, in Iowa, gas taxes only pay for less than 40% of the state’s road budget, and the vast majority of road damage is done by trucks, not cars.

We’ve covered the reasons these fees are misguided many times before, not least of which because they are a cynical lobbying ploy by the oil industry to disadvantage an objectively better transportation option. But Iowa’s new effort takes the stupidity to the next level.

Iowa double-taxes EVs, and each one is higher than taxes on gas

Iowa’s new EV fuel excise tax, in effect starting July 1, will apply a 2.6 cent tax per kilowatt-hour of electricity dispensed into an EV battery.

Thankfully, the new tax doesn’t apply to residences. But anyone charging at a public or commercial station will now have to pay two taxes where a gas car driver only pays one when they go to a gas station. The other tax is the state’s $130/year registration fee for EVs, which was explicitly intended to replace gas taxes for EVs.

Not only do EVs have to pay twice as many taxes as gas cars do, but each of these taxes is higher than the tax for an equivalent gas car.

At $130/year, an EV is taxed at about the rate of the average 35mpg car, given Iowa’s average 15k miles driven per year. While 35mpg is more than the average gas vehicle, it’s far less than the average efficiency of an EV – most of which are rated at over 100 mpge.

So this one tax is already more than what an EV would pay if it used gas. But on top of that, the 2.6c/kWh is also more than the taxes on gasoline usage. At current average Iowa gas prices of $3.70/gal, the state tax of 30c/gal represents a tax of about 8%. But at average Iowa electricity prices of 14c/kWh, 2.6 cents is an 18% tax, more than double the percentage tax on gasoline.

Per mile, these taxes come out to about .8 cents for EVs and 1.2 cents for gas cars, but remember both that gas cars are taxed based on fuel use not miles (and EVs are much more efficient, so thus should pay much less tax), and that EVs are already paying a tax just for existing.

Finally, there’s even a third source of taxes that some EV drivers pay. Iowa has a “local option” sales tax for utility costs, which means in some parts of the state, electricity is already taxed by an additional 1%. This is a small tax, but it means that EV drivers are instead paying three taxes to the state of Iowa, whereas gasoline users only pay one.

This has nothing to do with road damage

Governments have attempted to justify these abusive taxes by claiming that EVs are causing road funding shortfalls that need to be filled. But Iowa’s EVs cause virtually none of the road damage in the state.

Iowa has 4,596,501 gas vehicles registered as of 2022, and as of April of 2022, had 9,400 EVs registered.

If these EVs drive the same amount as the average Iowa driver, that means they’ll pay about $1.1 million in EV fuel excise tax per year collectively. But Iowa’s Department of Transportation has a $4 billion budget, meaning this new tax will represent ~.027% of its total. At Iowa average road construction costs, this would pay for somewhere around 30 lane-miles of road construction. Iowa currently has a total 235,460 lane-miles of road.

Meanwhile, a fully-loaded semi truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage than an average passenger vehicle. These trucks are driven more miles, too, with an average of around 45k miles per year. So if a $130 tax is reasonable for an average 15k-mile/yr EV, then a $3,900,000 yearly tax should be reasonable for a truck that does 30,000 times as much damage. If one of those numbers seems high, then both of them should.

Besides, less than 40% of Iowa’s roads are paid for by gas taxes, with the majority coming from other tax sources – which EV owners already pay their fair share for.

If we want to argue that “fairness” in paying for road damage is what’s important, then all vehicles should pay an equivalent tax based on weight and mileage regardless of motive power (and additional taxes for the amount of pollution their operation causes as well).

Until then, this is not an issue of fairness – it’s an issue of wealthy fossil lobbyists trying to disadvantage a superior powertrain choice while its numbers are still small and there are few people to complain, with the goal of continuing to choke you to death with the effects of their product.

What’s actually costing Iowans more? Pollution

What actually does have drastic costs for Iowans is pollution. The IMF has estimated that fossil fuels cost the US $649 billion in health and environmental costs per year, and if we assume those costs are distributed evenly across the US population, that would mean Iowa loses about $6 billion due to fossil fuel pollution per year.

Much of that damage comes from automobile exhaust. Transportation is the largest-emitting sector in the US, and car exhaust is responsible for more smog-forming pollutants than any other source. We know that EVs can reverse those trends, and even a small amount of EVs can make areas healthier and that every electric car brings $10,000 in life-saving benefits.

And that doesn’t even account for the benefits of avoiding climate change, which will disproportionately affect the agriculture industry (Iowa’s most important industry) and where quick action could save the world tens of trillions of dollars.

But putting a dollar amount on those costs abstracts them and makes them feel less harmful. Those health costs aren’t being paid by your pocketbook, but by your lungs. It’s a shockingly big number, but it’s a number representing an even more shocking amount of misery foisted on you by the fossil fuel industry which has lobbied for these punitive taxes on its better competition.

The number obscures the misery of thousands or millions of Iowans with reduced quality of life, children whose possibilities will be limited by lifetime lung problems before they even get started with their lives, retirees who can’t enjoy their well-earned leisure due to visits to the doctor or being leashed to cumbersome medical devices, or the thousands per year whose lives are cut short from the poison we continue pumping into their lungs.

And with this law, Iowa is throwing its lot in with increasing the misery of its residents. Placing an abusive tax on a small number of those residents who’ve made a better choice and are being punished for it, making better choices less attractive, and harming its residents and its main industry in the process.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

California announces lawsuit to resist Congress’ illegal attacks on clean air

Published

on

By

California announces lawsuit to resist Congress' illegal attacks on clean air

California will go to court to protect its clean air in the face of illegal attacks by republicans in Congress, said California Governor Gavin Newsom today.

Earlier today, the US Senate voted to revoke California’s waiver to set its own clean air rules using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The House previously voted on a similar measure earlier this month.

For more than half a century, California has asked for and been granted this waiver that allows it to set its own emissions rules. Other states can follow California’s rules (and around 11 states do so, though that amount differs for each rule), as long as they do so exactly, and as long as those rules are stronger than the national ones.

It has this unique authority because California had its own Clean Air Act before the federal Clean Air Act was passed, and because the state had a unique problem with smog at the time and needed stricter rules than the rest of the country. So a carveout was made in the federal law in recognition of this, and California has been granted this waiver over 100 times after following proper rulemaking processes, and denied zero times.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

California’s clean air laws have been effective in reducing pollution, with vehicle-based pollutants dropping by 98% in the last 50 years. But of course, there’s still more to be done, as the LA area remains one of the smoggiest in the country due to factors including geography, high car dependency, heavy shipping traffic, and a lack of public transitt.

Despite the protestations of industry at the time and since, these rules have not made it impossible for them to operate, or sell cars, or profit from selling cars, in California or any other states that follow its rules.

California’s newest set of rules is set to save Californians, and the residents of other states who follow them, hundreds of billions of dollars on health, fuel, and maintenance costs through 2050 by encouraging electrification – and of course will save thousands of lives due to pollution reductions.

Republicans targeted not just California’s regulation on light duty vehicles (ACC II), but also some other truck emissions rules (the ACT and HD low-NOx Omnibus rules), with their CRA action today.

The problem is, Congress does not have the power to revoke this waiver, because that’s not how the CRA works.

The CRA is an until-recently rarely-used Act which allows Congress to disapprove of recent rules set by a federal government agency, and bar that agency from implementing similar rules.

However, California’s waiver is not a rule from a federal government agency, it’s a waiver from the EPA to let California set its own rules. Therefore, the CRA doesn’t apply, as acknowledged by the Senate Parliamentarian, the Government Accountability Office, manymany other legal observers, and even Congress itself, where Senator Mike Lee voted to rescind the waiver, despite saying clearly that it “cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).”

It’s also outside the 60 day window allowed for review by the CRA. Stack another violation of law on top of the first one.

So, today’s action by Congress is illegal, and California is now going to court to stop it.

California announces lawsuit to protect clean air

Hot on the heels of republicans declaring their desire to raise health and fuel costs for Americans, and their opposition to clean air, California Governor Gavin Newsom came out with a response, committing to taking the issue to court, as California has done (and won) in the face of previous republican attacks on clean air.

Gov. Newsom declared his opposition to the republican plan to “Make America Smoggy Again” today, saying:

“This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”

-California Governor Gavin Newsom

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also spoke at the press conference, saying:

“With these votes, Senate Republicans are bending the knee to President Trump once again. The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution. As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”

In its press release, the California Governor’s Office pointed to the decades of precedent upholding California’s waiver, which is protected by the Clean Air Act. It also pointed out that the California Air Resources Board was established under Governor Ronald Reagan, and waivers were first granted by President Richard Nixon.

Both of these individuals are republicans, though from a time before the party had fallen quite so far down the rabbit hole of openly wishing harm on Americans.

California goes on to talk about how Congress’ actions make driving less affordable by raising fuel and health costs, hand over the keys to the auto industry to China by slowing down the US auto industry’s transition to EVs, and harm the climate leadership of California, the most productive state and the 4th largest economy in the world, which has grown by 78% since the year 2000 while cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% since then.

California did not yet file the lawsuit, merely stated its intent to do so today. But courts have ruled in favor of California many times in the past in cases related to its authority to protect its own air, most recently doing so in December.

Clean air groups also offered their support for California’s lawsuit. The Environmental Defense Fund said:

“We stand with California’s leaders in protecting the health and safety of millions of people from harmful vehicle pollution. The state’s clean air standards for new cars and trucks protect children’s lungs and the communities where they grow up from smog and soot. They help farmers, builders, and others who work outdoors breathe easier. They reduce the climate pollution that fuels deadly wildfires, droughts, and other disasters. They save hard-earned money at the pump — and they save thousands and thousands of lives”

-Vickie Patton, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund

While the EDF did not yet join the lawsuit (as it hasn’t been filed), a number of nonprofits joined another California lawsuit against an illegal freeze on charging funds today, so we may expect future comment from the groups involved in that lawsuit.


On another note, republicans took action to cut the rooftop solar credit today. That means you could have only until the end of this year to install rooftop solar on your home, before republicans raise the cost of doing so by an average of ~$10,000. So if you want to go solar, get started now, because these things take time and the system needs to be active before you file for the credit.

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. It has 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 Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Model Y compared to ‘Tesla killer’ Xiaomi YU7: it’s not even close

Published

on

By

Tesla Model Y compared to 'Tesla killer' Xiaomi YU7: it's not even close

Here we compare the specs of the new Tesla Model Y (Chinese version) to the newly unveiled Xiaomi YU7, a vehicle dubbed the ‘Tesla killer’.

For years, we laughed at people using the term ‘Tesla killer’ for new electric vehicles. To this day, even as Tesla’s sales are declining, it’s a bit dumb to use the term since no single EV is going to “kill” Tesla.

However, there’s one that is as close to do it as we have seen so far.

Earlier this year, we reported on how Xiaomi’s first electric vehicle, the SU7, had a major negative impact on Tesla’s Model 3 sales in China.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

At the time, we reported that the bigger concern for Tesla was that the Chinese electronics giant was now planning to launch a new EV, the YU7, aimed at competing against Tesla’s popular Model Y.

The Xiaomi YU7 was unveiled today, and we can now provide a side-by-side specs comparison that highlights Tesla’s problem in China.

Tesla Model Y vs Xiaomi YU7

The only thing that is missing about the YU7 as of the time of writing is the price, but it is expected to be very similar to Model Y and even likely to undercut by a bit.

Specs Tesla Model Y RWD Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD Xiaomi YU7 Standard (RWD) Xiaomi YU7 Pro (AWD) Xiaomi YU7 Max (AWD)
Launch Date January 2025 January 2025 July 2025 (expected) July 2025 (expected) July 2025 (expected)
Price (CNY) ¥263,500 ¥303,500 ~¥250,000 (est.) Not announced Not announced
Price (USD) ~$36,600 ~$42,200 ~$34,700 (est.) Not announced Not announced
Dimensions (L x W x H) 4,797 x 1,920 x 1,624 mm 4,797 x 1,920 x 1,624 mm 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm 4,999 x 1,996 x 1,600 mm
Wheelbase 2,890 mm 2,890 mm 3,000 mm 3,000 mm 3,000 mm
Weight 1,921 kg 1,992 kg Not specified 2,405 kg 2,405 kg
Powertrain Single motor RWD Dual motor AWD Single motor RWD Dual motor AWD Dual motor AWD
Power Output Not specified (est. 200-250 kW) Not specified (est. 350-400 kW) 235 kW (315 hp) 508 kW (681 hp) 508 kW (681 hp)
0-100 km/h 5.9 s 4.3 s 5.8 s 4.3 s ~3.2 s
Top Speed 201 km/h 201 km/h 240 km/h 253 km/h 253 km/h
Battery Type LFP NMC LFP LFP Li-ion ternary (CATL)
Battery Capacity ~62.5 kWh ~80 kWh 96.3 kWh 96.3 kWh ~101.7 kWh
Range (CLTC) 593 km 719 km 835 km 750 km 760 km
Charging Architecture 400V 400V 800V 800V 800V
Seating Capacity 5 (7 optional) 5 (7 optional) 5 5 5
Key Features – Updated design – Rear seat touchscreen – FSD-capable – Same as RWD – Higher performance – Panoramic HUD – HyperOS – Larger cabin – Same as Standard – Higher performance – Top-tier performance – Premium interior (assumed)
Autonomous Driving FSD with AI4 computer FSD with AI4 computer Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS) Nvidia Thor chip (700 TOPS)

These specs show that the vehicles are extremely similar. The main difference is that Xiaomi packs a lot more batteries into the YU7 than Tesla puts into the Model Y, resulting in a significant difference in range.

To be fair to Tesla, it still dominates in efficiency as it does more with fewer batteries, which is an important skill to have. However, most customers don’t care about that and want a longer range. They don’t care how you make it happen.

Another big difference is the design.

As we previously reported, the Tesla Model Y design refresh looks similar to other Chinese EVs.

Based on the online reception, the Model Y is viewed as having a more tired design that is not as luxurious as the YU7.

That’s particularly true of the exteriors.

It’s a similar situation in the interior, but Xiaomi also outshines Tesla here with more technology, like display along the dash:

Both vehicles feature a large center display where most of the controls are located.

Electrek’s Take

I think Tesla is in trouble in China. The competition is impressive and there are vehicles that clearly directly target Model Y, Tesla’s bread and butter, and there’s no better example than this one.

The only thing missing is pricing, but if it’s priced as expected, which is like the SU7 to the Model 3, it will make it a no-brainer for most buyers.

Also, Xiaomi often gets mentioned as a ‘Tesla killer’ because the vehicles are not only ultra competitive with Tesla, but it is also producing them in high volumes.

SU7 outsold the Model 3 within a year of launching. The YU7 is coming to market within the next 2 months, and it should reach impressive volumes that are going to put pressure on Tesla’s Model Y sales by the end of the year.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call ‘orgy of corruption’

Published

on

By

Top $TRUMP holders head to crypto dinner with president that Democrats call 'orgy of corruption'

Jonathan Raa | Nurphoto | Getty Images

Nick Pinto is a marketing director at his family’s law firm in New Jersey. He’s also a crypto trader who spent enough money on Donald Trump’s meme coin to win a spot at a private black-tie dinner with the president scheduled for Thursday night.

“I was kind of early in bitcoin and ethereum, so I’ve always been trading crypto,” said the 25-year-old Pinto, who claims he finished number 72 on the leaderboard for the token contest. “Once I saw the announcement that Trump was releasing a coin, I immediately started to purchase it.”

Pinto said in an interview that he spent half a million dollars on the $TRUMP meme token in order to attend the dinner, which is being held at President Trump’s private golf club in Potomac Falls, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Pinto shared screenshots with CNBC that appear to back up his claim.

The $TRUMP coin, which has no attached asset or underlying value, was launched just ahead of the president’s inauguration in January and has drawn heavy scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers who say President Trump is profiting from his position of power.

The dinner was announced last month and promised to reward the top 220 token owners with “the most exclusive invitation in the world.” The top 25 finishers were also told they would get a private reception with the president, as well as a “special VIP tour.”

President Trump hosts meme coin megadonors amid conflict of interest claims

Democratic senators called the competition a blatant example of “‘pay to play’ corruption” — the coin jumped 50% after the dinner announcement. Earlier this week, the Senate advanced a Trump-backed crypto regulation bill called the GENIUS Act after getting enough Democratic support to clear a potential filibuster.

Guests for Thursday night’s dinner were required to complete a background check, according to a copy of the invitation viewed by CNBC. Attendees were instructed not to arrive before 5:30 p.m., with the dinner starting at 7 p.m. and expected to last three hours.

Pinto doesn’t know what his investment in $TRUMP will get him other than the dinner. He said he thinks the tokens will be usable in a digital Trump golf game that was announced in December and is expected to launch next month, according to a press release.

“There’s a few things that I want to ask him,” Pinto said. “I definitely want to find out if he’s going to want to use this coin in the game. That’s probably my top question, because not many people know about that game.”

The Trump coin team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Because crypto wallets are pseudonymous, most participants in the competition appeared only as three- to four-letter usernames linked to cryptographic wallet addresses. Many of the winners are tied to international exchanges, according to blockchain analytics firm Inca Digital, raising concern that non-Americans may be paying for the opportunity to try and influence the U.S. president.  

While Pinto is going public about his participation, most of the identities tied to top wallets are unknown. Blockchain data shows that a majority of the top entrants used offshore exchanges barred to U.S. residents. An analysis by Bloomberg revealed that 19 of the top 25 wallets, and more than half of the top 220, are almost certainly owned by individuals operating outside the U.S.

The competition drew an estimated $148 million in purchases from supporters around the world, a massive fundraising haul for a digital asset launched just months ago. Among those attending is Justin Sun, the Chinese-born founder of the TRON blockchain, who confirmed this week that he is the contest’s top-ranked investor.

At current prices, Sun’s stake in $TRUMP is now worth more than $20 million. Sun was also one of the first major backers of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s crypto venture, buying at least $75 million of its native token “WLFI.”

In 2023, U.S. regulators accused Sun of illegally selling unregistered securities and artificially inflating token prices. A month into Trump’s second White House term, a federal court filing showed the SEC was in settlement talks with Sun to resolve the civil fraud charges.

Trump hosts exclusive gala for meme coin holders as lawmakers raise ethics concerns

Final leaderboard

MemeCore, a Singapore-based crypto network that was vocal in its quest to secure a spot at the Trump dinner, landed in second place with an investment of around $19.7 million, according to a post on X that the company later deleted. MemeCore didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some buyers didn’t make the cut.

Freight Technologies, a Houston-based logistics company, said it spent $2 million on $TRUMP tokens as part of what it called a strategic push to “champion fair and free trade” across the U.S.-Mexico border. The company still finished in 250th place. Freight trades on the Nasdaq as a penny stock and has a market cap of about $6.5 million.

The final leaderboard was calculated using a time-weighted formula that factored in both the size and duration of each participant’s holdings. That means early buyers who held onto their tokens consistently, like Pinto, could outrank bigger last-minute spenders.

Investors in $TRUMP, like with other meme coins, have to be prepared for big ups and downs.

Immediately after its launch in January, the Trump coin spiked to a $15 billion market cap before crashing within days. It’s currently worth about $2.1 billion.

That volatility has created stark winners and losers. Blockchain data shows that more than $5.2 billion in profits flowed to the top wallets, while over 590,000 wallets — mostly small retail traders — collectively lost nearly $4 billion.

Since January, more than $324 million in trading fees have been routed to wallets tied to the project’s creators, according to Chainalysis. The token’s code automatically directs a cut of each transaction to these addresses, allowing the team to profit from ongoing activity. The blockchain analytics firm stopped tracking the president’s meme token about two weeks ago, citing a need to refocus resources on paying clients.

The Trump family has reaped enormous financial benefit. Roughly 75% of proceeds from World Liberty Financial and more than 80% of profits from the meme coin have gone directly to the Trump Organization and affiliated entities. The project has also generated hundreds of millions of dollars in trading fees.

Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., has introduced legislation that would ban sitting presidents from profiting off meme coins while in office.

In a press conference hours before the dinner, Murphy warned that “just because the corruption is playing out in public where everybody can see, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t rampant, rapacious corruption.” He called tonight’s event “maybe the most corrupt, of all of the corruption.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., went further, describing the gathering as “an orgy of corruption” and accusing Trump of using the presidency “to make himself richer through crypto.” She called for changes to the GENIUS Act that would bar any president from profiting off stablecoin ventures.

With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats have limited ability to force action.

In response to CNBC’s questions about the dinner, Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly said, “The president is working to secure good deals for the American people, not for himself,” adding that he “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”

Pinto, who paid $500,000 for his invitation and still holds most of his tokens, said the risk is worth it.

“I didn’t put in more than I’m willing to lose,” he said. “I’m fine if it goes to zero.”

WATCH: Bitcoin surges to new record high above $111,000: CNBC Crypto World

Bitcoin surges to new record high above $111,000: CNBC Crypto World

Continue Reading

Trending