Tesla Kills It In 2019| How Will Other EVs Fair in 2020?

Washington (GGM) Analysis
NoreenProfilePicHillReport-75 by Noreen Wise

After a ten year struggle to become profitable, Tesla nailed it in 2019. The 4th quarter was the turning point according to CNN.

Some of the key factors for increased growth in consumer demand that put Tesla into the black are:

  • range
  • how long it takes to charge
  • how many public charging stations exist in local communities
  • and the EV car price

Every single one of these critical factors have moved in the right direction.

  • range increased with the new average at 200 miles per full charge
  • charging time went down significantly and now only averages a quick 20 minutes
  • public charging stations have mushroomed, not only businesses providing them in corporate parking lots to employees, but stores offering charging stations to consumers as a competitive advantage
  • EV car prices have dropped substantially

HillReport1-29-2020

Climate action focused states such as New York, California, Connecticut and Massachusetts have crafted creative carrots and stick, incentives and regulations, creating a patchwork of solutions that are driving results. Very happy for Tesla to finally experience the upside of being an innovator, after schlepping through the painful wilderness for so long.

In 2020, Tesla will have to face a much more competitive landscape, now that most of the obstacles in the EV marketplace have been eliminated.

The following is CNET’s Road Show’s official 2020 EV lineup by range:

  • Tesla Model S |373 miles | $79,990
  • Tesla Model 3 | Long Range 330 miles | $44,500
  • Tesla Model X | 328 miles | $81,000
  • Chevrolet Bolt EV | 259 miles | $36,620
  • Hyundai Kona Electric | 258 miles | $36,990
  • Kia Niro EV (SUV) | 239 miles | $38,500
  • Jaguar I-Pace | 234 miles | $69,850
  • Nissan Leaf Plus | 226 miles | $36,550
  • Audi e-tron | 204 miles | $75,000
  • Porsche Taycan | 201 miles | $150,900
  • BMW i3 | 153 miles | $44,450
  • Nissan Leaf | 150 miles | $29,990
  • Mini Cooper SE | 110 miles | $20,000
  • Honda Clarity Electric | 89 miles | lease only

Very extensive options. But the Tesla Model 3 certainly shines amongst its peers.~

HillReport1-29-2020

© Copyright 2018 – 2020. ALL Rights Reserved.
GallantLogoNWST-75

ST-Saga-CovFrnt-72dpi-300

PRUITT’s Bad Judgement, Is It Murder? | Perspective

perspective

EPA Director Scott Pruitt was interviewed during an Oversight Hearing held by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday January 30, 2018 for 2 hours, 29 minutes and 15 seconds. At its conclusion, there was no doubt in any reasonable person’s mind that Scott Pruitt is the most significant threat to public health since the founding of our nation 242 years ago. Pruitt’s irreparable damage to our well-being, his sabotaging of the U.S. environment, and his undermining of one of our strongest and largest industries, the U.S Tourism Industry ($1.5 Trillion) will leave a massive swath of devastation that will take centuries to recover from, if ever.

During the Oversight Hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) highlighted the 180˙ contrast between Pruitt’s strong “Trump is dangerous,” and “Trump’s abusive to the Constitution” stance in the spring of 2016, to the present “I don’t remember that,” and “I don’t echo that today at all” position on January 30, 2018. Translated, Pruitt is confessing to being “dangerous” just like Trump, and “abusive to the Constitution” just like Trump. They’re now in lockstep.

The cost to clean-up the massive amount of environmental damage is many trillions.

After Trump cut taxes for short-term benefit, shielding the public about the long-term negative consequences by attempting to blind us with neon lights and sparkles, while at the same time denying the mega financial toll climate change will have on our debt by simply denying climate change all together, (but the reality is, climate change will result in one devastating natural disaster after the next, causing financial ruin over and over and over again, turning our debt burden into Mt Everest…I’m growing more terrified with each word I click), we’re now tangled up in a tremendous confluence, and have to somehow simultaneously find a way to pay for the life-threatening Superfund Sites. Which brings us back to Pruitt.

There are apparently over 1,340 Superfund sites. New Jersey has the most with 116. New Jersey is also one of the smallest states per square-miles with a population of roughly 9 million, so the contaminated area overlaps with major population centers. Additionally, as Senator Booker pointed out during the Oversight Hearing,  New Jersey is prone to flooding, especially during hurricanes. A flooded Superfund site, is alarming from a health risk standpoint.

California is 2nd on the Superfund site list with 98 sites. New York is 4th with 93. Together, these three blue states, home to approximately 68 million people, have 307 Superfund sites.

EPA Director Scott Pruitt recently created a “Superfund Sites Targeted for Immediate, Intense Action” list. There are 20 of the 1,340  Superfund sites on the list.

  • 3 are in New Jersey
  • 1 is in California
  • 0 in New York
  • 2 in Montana

This is clearly bad decision making. Factor in the glaring fact that three of the densely populated top Superfund site states are blue states, all three of which are densely populated, and one of which didn’t have any sites make the list, leaves the impression that the Pruitt’s selection process was spiteful, which implies that Pruitt created this grouping with malice.

Again, sparsely populated red Montana, with only 16 sites, had two sites make the list.

So, when EPA Director Scott Pruitt, who unwittingly confessed in an Oversight Hearing to be “dangerous” and “abusive to the Constitution,” hones in on a very specific health crisis, one that causes many forms of cancer that result in death (by this point hundreds of thousands of deaths, perhaps even millions), and crafts a list of Superfund sites targeted for Immediate Intense Action, and taints the process by intentionally not selecting sites in specific areas that any reasonable person can deduce are the ideal, and instead chooses at least 2, possibly 5, that are extremely questionable…knowing that because he didn’t choose some of the “ideal” sites when he had the opportunity, people will die that otherwise wouldn’t…one can’t help but ask the question: is this first degree murder? Is it pre-meditated? Pruitt clearly put some thought into this.

© Copyright 2017 – 2018. ALL Rights Reserved.

GOLD8small