Connect with us
Boulder City Police shares why they bought 4 Teslas and a Mach E GT Boulder City Police shares why they bought 4 Teslas and a Mach E GT

News

Boulder City Police shares why they bought 4 Teslas and a Mach E GT

Credit: Boulder City Police

Published

on

The Boulder City Police Department purchased several new EVs for its fleet and we recently reported on the purchase of its Tesla Model Ys. Boulder City purchased the new EVs with a small portion of the American Rescue Plan Act funds and the city said that this was a strategic decision considering that the police department is the city’s largest gas user.

Teslarati reached out to the Boulder City Police Department and we wanted to know how many Model Ys they purchased and also, what made them choose Tesla. At the time, we didn’t know about their purchase of the Ford Mustang Mach E GT.

Lieutenant Vincent Albowicz told Teslarati in an email that the department purchased two Tesla Model Ys, two Tesla Model 3s, and one Ford Mach E GT.

“Our plan is to test and compare the Model Y against the Mach E (in patrol).  The remaining vehicles will be tested and evaluated in other roles.”

Advertisement

Those other roles would include detective or administrative vehicles and other similar roles, Lieutenant Albowicz explained.

Lieutenant Albowicz also shared several reasons why the department chose to buy Tesla EVs. Tesla’s ability to deliver the vehicles quickly and at a reasonable cost as well as its ability to solve problems remotely and send a mobile repair technician to the location topped the list.

“We chose Tesla due to their ability to deliver a quality product quickly and at a reasonable cost.  We ordered our Teslas just under a month ago and have already received our Model Ys.  As a comparison, the Mach E was originally ordered on February 3rd (by someone who backed out of the deal – we were able to pick up the order) and we are still waiting for it to be delivered.”

“The Mach E also cost approximately six-thousand dollars more than the Tesla Model Y.  Another consideration was Tesla’s ability to fix problems remotely (should any occur) and their ability to send a mobile repair technician to our location.  Lastly, we like doing our part cutting down on fossil fuel use and pollution.”

Advertisement

Note: Johnna is a Tesla shareholder and supports its mission. 

Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, or concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1

Johnna Crider is a Baton Rouge writer covering Tesla, Elon Musk, EVs, and clean energy & supports Tesla's mission. Johnna also interviewed Elon Musk and you can listen here

Advertisement
Comments

Energy

Tesla Megapack Megafactory in Texas advances with major property sale

Stream Realty Partners announced the sale of Buildings 9 and 10 at the Empire West industrial park, which total 1,655,523 square feet.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s planned Megapack factory in Brookshire, Texas has taken a significant step forward, as two massive industrial buildings fully leased to the company were sold to an institutional investor.

In a press release, Stream Realty Partners announced the sale of Buildings 9 and 10 at the Empire West industrial park, which total 1,655,523 square feet. The properties are 100% leased to Tesla under a long-term agreement and were acquired by BGO on behalf of an institutional investor.

The two facilities, located at 100 Empire Boulevard in Brookshire, Texas, will serve as Tesla’s new Megafactory dedicated to manufacturing Megapack battery systems.

According to local filings previously reported, Tesla plans to invest nearly $200 million into the site. The investment includes approximately $44 million in facility upgrades such as electrical, utility, and HVAC improvements, along with roughly $150 million in manufacturing equipment.

Advertisement

Building 9, spanning roughly 1 million square feet, will function as the primary manufacturing floor where Megapacks are assembled. Building 10, covering approximately 600,000 square feet, will be dedicated to warehousing and logistics operations, supporting storage and distribution of completed battery systems.

Waller County Commissioners have approved a 10-year tax abatement agreement with Tesla, offering up to a 60% property-tax reduction if the company meets hiring and investment targets. Tesla has committed to employing at least 375 people by the end of 2026, increasing to 1,500 by the end of 2028, as noted in an Austin County News Online report.

The Brookshire Megafactory will complement Tesla’s Lathrop Megafactory in California and expand U.S. production capacity for the utility-scale energy storage unit. Megapacks are designed to support grid stabilization and renewable-energy integration, a segment that has become one of Tesla’s fastest-growing businesses.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error

To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Europe

A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.

The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.

Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.

“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.

Advertisement

According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.

“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.

Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.

However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.

Advertisement

To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.

That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling

The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems. 

The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report. 

While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.

Advertisement

In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.

According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”

Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”

Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.

Advertisement

Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line. 

Continue Reading