Business
China’s highflying EV industry is going global. Why that has Tesla and other carmakers worried
The U.S.-China rivalry has a new flashpoint in the battle for technology supremacy: electric cars.
So far, the U.S. is losing.
Last year, China became the world’s foremost auto exporter, according to the China Passenger Car Assn., surpassing Japan with more than 5 million sales overseas. New energy vehicles accounted for about 25% of those exports, and more than half of those were created by Chinese brands, a shift from the traditional assembly role China has played for foreign automakers.
“The big growth has happened in the last three years,” said Stephen Dyer, head of the Asia automotive and industrials unit at AlixPartners, a consulting firm. “With Chinese automakers making inroads for most of the market share, that’s a huge challenge for foreign automakers.”
China’s rapid expansion domestically and abroad has added fuel to a series of clashes between the U.S. and China over trade and advanced technology, as competition intensifies between the two superpowers.
The U.S. has lofty goals for expanding its own EV industry. California, which accounted for 37% of the nation’s electric car sales as of 2022, aims to phase out purchases of new cars that run on fossil fuels by 2035.
Concerns about Chinese oversupply have come just as a broader slowdown in sales has hit EV makers. Tesla announced Monday that it would lay off more than 10% of its workforce in an effort to reduce costs and increase productivity.
In the company’s last earnings report in January, Chief Executive Elon Musk warned about the competitiveness of Chinese brands. BYD, China’s largest EV maker, surpassed Tesla in car sales last year.
“If there are not trade barriers established, they will pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world,” Musk said.
This year, Manhattan Beach-based Fisker Inc., an electrical vehicle startup, cut 15% of its workforce, had its stock delisted and said it might file for bankruptcy protection. Apple also recently announced an end to its long-held ambitions of making a self-driving EV.
One area in which Chinese automakers handily beat Western competitors is on price, thanks to government subsidies that supported the industry’s initial rise as well as cheap access to critical minerals and components such as lithium-ion batteries, which account for about a third of the overall cost of production.
“It always had these ingredients waiting around,” said Cory Combs, an associate director for Chinese energy policy at the consulting firm Trivium China. “It was kind of a magic moment for these things to come together.”
That enabled the success of BYD, which started producing lithium-ion batteries in 1996 and making cars in 2005.
In March, BYD cut the price of its cheapest EV model in China to less than $10,000. According to Kelley Blue Book, the average EV retail price is $55,343 in the U.S., compared with $48,247 across all vehicles.
While pricing wars have forced Chinese automakers to slash profit margins at home, they can charge more in overseas markets, further incentivizing exports as domestic growth has slowed. According to research firm Gavekal Dragonomics, demand in China has cooled due to the removal of tax breaks and an increase in the use of public transportation post-pandemic.
“There is a ton of pressure, especially if you are a smaller player, to find a market that is less competitive,” Combs said. “And every market is less competitive than China’s.”
Though 27.5% tariffs have in effect locked Chinese EVs out of the U.S. market, the fear that the cheaper models could eventually undermine American automakers has started to spread.
The Alliance of American Manufacturing warned in a February report that allowing Chinese EVs into the country would be an “extinction-level event” for the U.S. auto industry. The group also cited the risks of Chinese auto companies building facilities across the border in Mexico that could circumvent tariffs.
When the global market is flooded by artificially cheap Chinese products, the viability of American and other foreign firms is put into question
— Janet Yellen
After a trip to China in April, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen expressed concerns about government-funded overcapacity in Chinese manufacturing of electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels. She noted that other advanced and emerging markets shared those worries, and compared the oversupply to a flood of low-cost Chinese steel hitting the global economy more than a decade ago.
“When the global market is flooded by artificially cheap Chinese products, the viability of American and other foreign firms is put into question,” Yellen said.
The European Union has opened an investigation into government subsidies utilized by China’s EV industry and whether such support violates international trade laws.
China’s state news agency pushed back on claims of overcapacity in an April article, which said exports accounted for 12% of China’s EV sales last year. It attributed the industry’s success to competitive pricing and technology, rather than government subsidies.
After meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in April, Chinese President Xi Jinping decried protectionism in other countries and said Chinese EV exports have helped ease global inflation and combat climate change.
How the U.S. is addressing the emergence of China’s EV dominance has already become a hot-button issue for the presidential election in November.
President Biden has encouraged the domestic expansion with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes electric vehicle tax credits for U.S. manufacturers, but not if they are sourcing minerals and materials from “foreign entities of concern,” such as China. Meanwhile, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has claimed electric car manufacturing will reduce auto industry jobs, and called for a rollback of the EV-friendly policies enacted during Biden’s term.
Politicians from both parties have proposed even harsher tariffs on Chinese-made EVs should they try to enter the U.S. market, prioritizing the protection of U.S. jobs over goals to reduce carbon emissions.
“That will make it even more important for Chinese companies to set up local assembly operations to minimize those costs,” said Gregor Sebastian, senior analyst at the New York-based research firm Rhodium Group. “A lot of companies are adopting a wait-and-see approach.”
Even without Chinese auto imports, the technology within the vehicles has unnerved U.S. officials. In March, Biden announced an investigation into Chinese-made “smart cars” and the data the internet-connected vehicles could collect on American users. Collaborations between U.S. companies and CATL, the Chinese battery-making behemoth, have also been subject to greater scrutiny as tensions between the two countries have worsened.
But China has spent decades cementing its status as a global leader in procuring minerals and developing critical technologies such as EV batteries while the U.S. has fallen behind. That will make it harder now for Western automakers to wholly shut out Chinese suppliers, said Tu Le, founder and managing director of Sino Auto Insights, a consulting firm.
“If automakers are going to build affordable, clean-energy vehicles this decade, the only way that happens is by using Chinese batteries,” Le said.
Business
Volvo to pay $197 million after hidden pollution device found in California truck engines
Volvo Group North America has agreed to pay nearly $197 million to resolve allegations from California regulators that company’s heavy-duty truck engines violated California emissions standards and certification requirements.
About 10,000 diesel truck engines manufactured by Volvo were equipped with an undisclosed device, causing them to release excessive levels of smog-forming pollution across California, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that regulates air pollution and greenhouse gases.
Volvo is developing a software fix to repair many of these vehicles and extend their warranties at no cost to the owners. Eligible truck owners are expected to be notified of a non-mandatory recall on these trucks next year.
CARB found inconsistencies in the Swedish automaker’s data while testing trucks with Volvo engines from model year 2010 to 2016, which resulted in the investigation and ensuing settlement.
“This case underscores why CARB’s compliance testing and strong enforcement are essential to protecting the state’s air quality and public health,” said Lauren Sanchez, chair of the state Air Resources Board. “Our responsibility goes beyond adopting regulations — we are committed to upholding them by identifying violations and holding companies accountable for meeting emissions standards.”
Under the settlement, Volvo will pay $17.5 million in civil penalties to reimburse the state for the cost of the investigation and support its vehicle-testing operations. Another $179 million will go toward investing in clean-air initiatives, such as electric vehicle incentive programs, to offset air pollution that resulted from the alleged violations.
Business
Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians
Local opposition has blocked or delayed more than a dozen huge data center projects around the country. But these Californians don’t get a vote on Nevada projects that could affect their electricity supply.
Those big data centers being built for artificial intelligence firms are in bad odor nationwide.
Seven in 10 Americans oppose projects in their local communities, according to a recent Gallup poll. More than a dozen, valued at some $64 billion, have been blocked or delayed by local opposition in recent years.
But what happens when the people directly affected by these project plans don’t get a vote?
Data centers did not influence this decision.
— NV Energy, explaining its move to end service to 49,000 California customers. But is it telling the truth?
That’s the quandary faced by 49,000 residents living on the California side of Lake Tahoe, mostly in the city of South Lake Tahoe. The surge in construction of data centers in Nevada is prompting the Nevada utility that supplies 75% of the Californians’ electricity to cut them off next year.
The California-regulated utility that carries the electricity over the state line to their homes and businesses has assured them that it will find alternative sources to protect them from losing service — but hasn’t promised that their rates won’t increase because of the transition.
“It’s like we don’t exist,” Danielle Hughes, the head of a local energy nonprofit and an advocate for the customers, told me. The crisis facing those residents is just the latest in a long line of indignities they have suffered thanks to several unique characteristics of their energy market, Hughes says.
For one thing, they are permanent residents of the community — teachers, firefighters, police, and service workers at the hotels, restaurants and resorts that bring in a tidal wave of visitors every winter. The latter, as well as vacation-home owners and renters, generate seasonal electricity demands that drive up power costs year-round.
That means that the permanent residents are in effect subsizing the visitors, even though they’re lower-income ratepayers than the generally well-heeled vacationers.
Before delving deeper into the issues for the permanent residents, let’s examine the effect of the large-scale data centers being built and proposed in Nevada, and more generally coast to coast.
Nevada has emerged as a prime location for data centers, in part due to the wide open, undeveloped acreage available for construction. More than 60 data centers have sprung up around Reno and Las Vegas, with many more slated to rise in the northern part of the state, according to a survey by the Desert Research Institute, a Nevada nonprofit.
“We’re right at the epicenter for global expansion” of data centers, observed Sean McKenna, a co-author of the report.
The existing data centers consumed 22% of Nevada’s electric generating capacity in 2024, DRI calculated. If all those under construction and on the drawing board are completed, that figure would rise to 35% by 2030. NV Energy, the Nevada utility that provides the electricity for the California side of Lake Tahoe, estimates that the electricity demand for just the 12 projects being planned would come to 5,900 megawatts — nearly three times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam.
That construction frenzy is likely to bring some of the same drawbacks that have provoked local communities to militate against data centers — not only pressure on existing electricity capacity, but also a voracious appetite for water due to the cooling needs of the computerized equipment managing the data for AI applications. Residents in the neighborhoods of data centers have also complained of incessant noise coming from their 24/7 operations.
With global warming driving up temperatures in Nevada’s semiarid and desert zones, they add, residents will find themselves in a contest with data center owners for an already inadequate supply of power in the state. DRI warns: “Local utilities and ratepayers in data center cluster regions like Northern Nevada also risk bearing the costs of subsidizing AI and computing services as power grids expand their infrastructure.”
In many communities, the result has been a vigorous and vocal backlash, including in California. They’ve packed town halls, prompted state and local political leaders to legislate limits on their growth or even to ban them.
That brings us back to the situation around Lake Tahoe.
In terms of its electric utility service, the region has long been an outlier. About 25% of its power comes from two solar farms operated by Liberty Utilities, but the rest comes from NV Energy; the reason is that it’s unconnected with the California transmission grid but accessible via a line from Nevada.
As a result, it falls into the cracks among energy regulators. Because it’s not part of the California grid, the California Public Utilities Commission has only limited jurisdiction over its service, although it has the authority to approve its electricity rates. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission doesn’t oversee the customers’ service at all, because they’re not Nevada residents.
The region is also unusual because its peak energy demand comes in the winter; most of the rest of California peaks in the summer, when air conditioners are on full blast.
Hughes and other residents have maintained that because the CPUC hasn’t modeled electricity demand for their small region, they have been paying for infrastructure that doesn’t serve them.
“We’ve been paying for assets in Nevada,” Hughes says, “without it being tracked by the state of California.”
Liberty does charge permanent residents in the Tahoe area about 2% less than the rate for part-time residents, but the discount should be much larger, Hughes says. Liberty didn’t respond to my request for comment.
Earlier this year, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would no longer serve as its wholesale energy provider after mid-May next year, and urged Liberty to make haste to secure an alternate supplier.
Liberty promised its customers in a recent statement that they “will not be left without service” as a result of the change. “This does not mean the power is shutting off,” Eric Schwarzrock, president of Liberty Utilities, said at a South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting last month, according to the news site SFGate. “Energy companies, utilities, large customers change energy supply frequently.”
Liberty and NV Energy both attributed the change to a preexisting agreement that anticipated that NV Energy would eventually cease providing power to Liberty’s customers, although their interpretations of the deal and the impetus for the change appear to be at odds.
The “long-standing agreements and planning assumptions … date back more than a decade,” NV Energy said in a May 14 statement. That was “well before data center growth became a factor,” the utility said. “Data centers did not influence this decision.”
That is, to be charitable, dubious. How do we know? Liberty said so in a March 6 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, requesting permission to take “immediate action” to find alternative providers.
The letter stated that Liberty had expected its arrangement with NV Energy to “continue indefinitely.” During their last negotiations for an extension of the deal, however, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would cease serving Liberty on May 31, 2027, with a possible extension to Dec. 31.
“This change of stance by NV Energy was a surprise to Liberty,” the letter said. Liberty ascribed NV Energy’s decision to new “market circumstances” in the latter’s home service region. Among them: “A number of entities are seeking to add large loads such as data centers into the area.”
NV Energy says it will continue serving Liberty’s customers until Liberty secures a new supplier, even if it misses the May 2027 deadline; the ultimate deadline is Dec. 31, 2027, when NV Energy expects to complete its 350-mile Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and the Reno area, part of a $4.2-billion infrastructure upgrade.
Yet that still leaves an open question that should make those customers nervous: How much will they be paying for power?
In its recent statement to customers, Liberty made only the vaguest of promises. “While no utiulity can predict the exact future cost of energy,” it said, “affordability is a primary goal” in its search for new suppliers. “With a competitive bidding process, we aim to find a cost-effective solution for your monthly bill.”
But any new supplier would have to come from outside California, because of the region’s lack of any connection with the state’s grid. And generators in nearby states face their own rising demands from data centers, drought and global warming.
The drawbacks of these massive industrial installations are beginning to be felt by their neighbors, including higher electricity prices and dwindling water supplies. They’re only going to get worse.
Business
Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
new video loaded: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
transcript
transcript
Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.
-
“The evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was an after-the-fact contrivance by a competitor was overwhelming.” “This reminds me of key moments in this country’s history. The siege of Charleston, the Battle of Bunker Hill, these were major losses for Americans. But who won the war? And this one is not over. And to sum it up, I can sum it up in one word: appeal.”
By Meg Felling
May 18, 2026
-
Washington2 minutes ago
Washington Lottery Mega Millions, Cash Pop results for May 19, 2026
-
Wisconsin8 minutes ago
Wisconsin Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for May 19, 2026
-
West Virginia14 minutes agoThis week in West Virginia history
-
Wyoming20 minutes agoWyoPreps’ 2026 Wyoming High School Track and Field State Championship Preview
-
Crypto26 minutes agoK33 Research Says Bitcoin’s $60K Bottom Was Bear Market’s Maximum Drawdown
-
Finance31 minutes agoElections Board Rule Could Limit Public Access to Campaign Finance Complaints
-
Fitness38 minutes agoLeast fit people need to do more exercise than fittest to get same benefit – study
-
Movie Reviews50 minutes agoJack Ryan: Ghost War review – Amazon’s Tom Clancy series spawns middling movie