It might not be surprising that North Dakota ranks low for electric vehicle adoption, but existing owners say they are frustrated elected officials here resist the movement, making it hard for this consumer activity to flourish in a rural state.

Gov. Doug Burgum and the state's two U.S. senators have recently spoken out against regional and federal efforts to aid in the transition to EVs.

Shannon Mohn, a member of the North Dakota EV Owners group and automotive instructor at Minnesota State Community and Technical College, said there is too much politics surrounding the issue, leaving states such as his behind in adding fast charging stations. He wants officials to know there are people in the region not worried about being left in the cold by EVs.

"I don't worry about driving anywhere with my electric car, I really don't," Mohn emphasized. "I can make it there and back without a problem."

He noted a big factor is that he can charge it at home and park it in his garage on cold nights. Mohn acknowledged it takes additional planning to cross North Dakota, given the current infrastructure landscape. North Dakota is using federal money awarded to states to enhance its charging network, but Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., has contended incentives are a waste, arguing there is not a strong market.

Mohn pointed out while EVs might see their range affected by the cold, gas-powered cars are less efficient in the winter, too. He feels dotting the state with more charging stations will naturally attract more EV owners. He also contended there is an economic benefit for rural areas because tourists are likely to make a pit stop in smaller towns if they can charge up.

"I won't go and visit a town that doesn't have a charger if I'm traveling," Mohn explained. "I will bypass their towns and go to a town that does have a charger."

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said even with political forces and other factors at play, many forecasts still expect a strong acceleration in EV adoption. Mohn is glad the Biden administration has been aggressive in gaining momentum but feels some mandates invite opponents to ramp up attacks deemed political. He recommends more outreach for the public to learn about the cars as the industry monitors growth trends.


get more stories like this via email

Medical debt has long been a burden for many Americans, with millions struggling to pay off their healthcare bills. In the Buckeye State, however, a new program is offering relief to some residents.

Alexandria Delikat-Hinze, an Ohioan, recently experienced the impact firsthand when her medical debt was unexpectedly cleared.

"This program can be absolutely life-changing," she said, "and having your medical debt cleared can truly have a domino effect in your life and change so many things."

Delikat-Hinze, who accumulated $25,000 in medical debt during graduate school, benefited from a partnership between RIP Medical Debt and local governments in Lucas County and Toledo. Using $800,000 in federal COVID relief funds, the program canceled millions of Ohio residents' medical debt.

Critics, however, have raised concerns about its sustainability, relying heavily on federal funding and not addressing the root causes of high medical costs.

While the program has garnered praise, it isn't available statewide, leaving many Ohioans still struggling with their medical bills. Delikat-Hinze noted that such initiatives could potentially benefit more people if expanded to other counties and states.

"The one thing that makes me sad, though, is knowing that it's not happening statewide," she said. "I was just so lucky to be in the right place at the right time to be able to qualify for this that everyone should be able to qualify for."

As talks about medical debt relief grow, Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed a plan to erase debt for millions, reflecting increased attention to the issue.

Research shows 15 million Americans have medical debt impacting their credit scores. Programs such as the one in Lucas County help some but leave many others in Ohio still in need.


get more stories like this via email

The election is less than six weeks away and Washingtonians will be deciding on a slate of initiatives, including one measure affecting funding in support of children.

If passed, Initiative 2109 would repeal a 7% tax on capital gains for assets worth more than $262,000. The repeal has support from hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who said it is a slippery slope toward a state income tax, which the state does not have.

Gabriela Quintana, senior policy associate for the Economic Opportunity Institute, said fewer than 4,000 people in the state pay the tax.

"It's a very privileged move to be able to fund these initiatives for your own needs and to not think about the impact this will have on a huge majority in Washington state," Quintana contended.

Last year, the tax pulled in about $786 million. The first $500 million collected from it goes toward schools, early learning and child care. Any additional money collected goes toward school construction.

Justin Fox-Bailey, president of the Snohomish Education Association, said the vast majority of Washingtonians who do not pay the capital gains tax will be affected if Initiative 2109 passes, especially kids.

"They're going to feel it in their communities when we give a tax cut to these millionaires and billionaires and you don't have the same access to child care, your kid's school isn't getting updated, public services are being cut or reduced," Fox-Bailey pointed out.

Washington has historically had one of the most regressive tax systems in the country and a recent report found the lowest-income 20% pay more than three times as much of their income as the top 1%.

Quintana argued the capital gains tax is vital for the state.

"We all need to play a role, including the wealthy individuals," Quintana asserted. "Repealing it will only really hurt families and children."

Ballots start going out on Oct. 18.

Congress has one week from today to reauthorize a sweeping policy playing a big role in shaping the nation's food production system, and Wisconsin agricultural voices are paying close attention.

The Farm Bill is supposed to be renegotiated every five years. A temporary extension was approved one year ago, amid big differences about where to prioritize aid, including subsidies typically helping industrial-level farms.

Chuck Anderas, associate policy director at the Wisconsin-based Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said as the issues get sorted out, organizations like his hope lawmakers do not lose sight of the need to adequately fund conservation programs to benefit small farms.

"To neglect that is basically just picking winners and losers within the agricultural economy," Anderas contended.

Advocates are concerned about proposed language which would essentially spread conservation funding to "climate-smart" practices skeptics say only benefit big farms. The Farm Bill also covers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. House Republicans have proposed formula changes hunger-relief advocates say would amount to a $30 billion cut. GOP leaders dispute the claim, saying they would lower costs without cutting anyone's benefits.

According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, Wisconsin has seen more than 20 weather-related disasters -- each resulting in at least one-billion dollars in damage -- in the past five years, four times the totals from the 1980s and 90s.

Anderas argued stronger and effective climate resiliency aid in the Farm Bill means participating producers can mitigate some of the damage.

"Even if you are skeptical about climate change, these practices infiltrate more water and hold more water in the soil and make a huge difference on the amount of water coming off of farm fields," Anderas outlined.

He added it protects natural resources, as well as infrastructure in farming communities, with local governments not having to spend as much on fixing washed-out roads and bridges.

With the current focus on the November election, analysts said it is likely Congress will approve another temporary extension of the current Farm Bill, rather than agree on a new one.