Electric vehicles now make up almost 18% of the car-buying market in California. That's up 42% from 2021, according to the latest data from the California Energy Commission.

Right now, low-income buyers can get up to $9,500 in grants and rebates. But Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said these rebates become meaningless when dealer markups are out of control.

"Some of them are charging $50,000, $60,000 or even more, over the manufacturer's suggested retail price, the sticker price," she said, "and we're concerned that whatever rebates people get can just be swallowed by the dealers."

Consumers can look online at markups.org to find out which dealers are selling cars at the MSRP, versus which ones are jacking up the prices. A recent study by iseeCars.com found the hybrid models with the biggest markups include the Ford Maverick truck and the Lexus RX 450h SUV.

Proposition 30 on California's November ballot would raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for more rebates on zero-emission vehicles, build more EV charging stations and fund wildfire prevention. But Shahan saif more rebates could motivate dealers to raise their prices even more, unless the California Air Resources Board moves to cap prices.

"If they want taxpayers to help fund those transactions, and assist low- and moderate-income consumers into getting into cars, to make them more affordable," she said, "they have to be more affordable."

Dave Clegern, a public affairs officer for the California Air Resources Board, said the agency expects EV prices to drop as the supply grows. Asked if the agency would consider price caps, he responded that it would have to "think carefully about the best consumer protection approach" if it became necessary to place a limitation on price above the manufacturer's suggested retail.

The Iowa Senate has advanced a bill to outlaw handling a cellphone while driving.

The state already has a distracted driving law, but it allows people to hold a mobile device as long as they're not texting. Supporters of this measure say current law makes it difficult to pinpoint the cause of many accidents.

Senate File 547 would further target distracted driving, and establish fines for people who handle their mobile devices at all while behind the wheel. It is not the first time Iowa lawmakers have debated a measure like this, but now it is getting more support from state police.

Sen. Claire Celsi, D-West Des Moines, said current law makes it hard for troopers to say exactly what caused a crash, but they often cite distracted driving in many serious accidents.

"Some of the troopers described instances where people are watching movies as they roll down the road," Celsi outlined. "Others are texting. Others are checking Facebook."

Celsi argued the bill would help police enforce the law by completely banning cellphone use while driving unless it is equipped with a hands-free device. The bill moves next to the House, where it faces opposition.

Celsi is a co-sponsor of the bill and was once opposed to regulating cellphone use in the car because she thought it would require people to make big investments in technology to comply. She acknowledged it is no longer the case, and added people can get a hands-free device for as little as $20. Beyond the technology now being affordable, she said bicyclists have also come out in support of the measure.

"Many bicyclists will tell you harrowing tales of driving down the road and seeing a driver that's completely on their phone coming straight towards them and not even realizing that they're there," Celsi observed. "I think the combination of the two -- the law enforcement and the bicycle coalition coming together -- was the driving force that got the bill to pass in the Senate."

If the measure becomes law, Iowa would join 30 other states banning handheld cellphone use while driving.


get more stories like this via email

The New York State Legislature is considering a bill to allow the creation of public banks. The New York Public Banking Act would authorize municipal and other local governments to form and control public banks through ownership interests such as capital stock. The hope is these banks will invest in community endeavors rather than interests in line with making the bank profit. A report from the Rainforest Action Network said some of the largest banks in the nation are heavily invested in the fossil-fuel industry despite world policy shifts to renewable energies.

Mike Sandmel, senior campaign organizer with New Economy Project, said public banks present benefits to municipalities invested in them.

"Broadly speaking, it is a great tool for investing in infrastructure. This is a great tool for investing in affordable housing; for investing in small business creation," he said.

The recent turmoil following the failure of Signature Bank has influenced interest in public banking. Numerous organizations and elected officials across the state signed a letter
to the Majority Leader of the State Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly supporting the bill.

Primary opposition to the bill, currently under review by the Senate Banking Committee, has come from Wall Street banks trying to keep the business these cities bring, Sandmel said.

Previous versions of the bill were brought before the Legislature in the past two sessions, but never advanced beyond the Banking Committee. Sandmel is hopeful it will pass this year, but even if it does, work remains to outline local government's terms for a public bank, he said.

"We have to have conversations in local communities about is this something we want to do? Is this something we think we can pull off? What does our business plan look like? What does our application look like? You have to pass legislation, locally, right. Through city councils or county legislatures. To authorize actually doing that work of putting that business plan together," he said.

Other actions are being taken to make banks more accountable to the people whose money they hold, outside of this bill. New York City's Banking Commission
will include a public comment process for their public hearing to designate banks eligible for holding deposits of city funds.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed new regulations on credit card late fees, which could save Americans billions of dollars.

The bureau reported late fees cost cardholders about $12 billion a year. Congress attempted to ban excessive late fees in 2009, but the Federal Reserve still allowed companies to charge late fees up to $41. The new proposal would lower it to $8 and end an automatic yearly inflation adjustment for the fee amount.

Overall, the regulation would cap late fees at 25% of the minimum payment.

Daniel Rathfelder, vice president for card services for Coastal Federal Credit Union, said the new rules would help cardholders.

"I think overall, consumers are going to see some big pieces shift in their favor, if that gets adopted," Rathfelder observed.

Late fees are intended to cover collection costs, and some card issuers increase the fees with each additional missed payment. Under the proposal, companies would still be able to charge higher fees, if they can prove their collection costs are higher. The bureau estimated the new rule would save people as much as $9 billion a year. The agency is taking public comments until April 3.

The bureau also wants public comments on the possibility of a 15-day grace period beyond the due date before late fees can be assessed. Rathfelder noted in its public comment on the rule change, his credit union endorsed the idea.

"We pushed a little bit harder and said if consumers had a grace period, and the companies who could do automation around messaging and notification, getting people after the first day that it's due a notice saying, 'Hey, you missed this, but you have nine more days,' that would probably resolve a lot of the scenarios," Rathfelder explained.

Rathfelder added some enclaves of the financial services industry have already adopted grace periods, including for auto loans and mortgages.