The "AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act" now in Congress would mandate all new cars in the U.S. be equipped with AM radios, and it's stirring a debate in Ohio.

The legislation is supported by 60 bipartisan U.S. senators, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, but it is being criticized by the Consumer Technology Association for its potential to increase vehicle costs and stifle innovation, particularly as electric vehicles rise in popularity.

Gary Shapiro, CEO of the association, testified against the mandate in a House subcommittee. He highlighted the financial and technological burdens a mandate would place on automakers and consumers alike.

"AM radio is wonderful, but it should not be required in every car sold in the 'forever future,' because it is a trade-off with safety and other features and it costs money," Shapiro asserted. "It slows the shift to electric cars."

Proponents of the mandate argued AM radio is crucial for emergency broadcasts, particularly in rural areas where digital signals may be weak. Shapiro pointed out incorporating AM radios into EVs is problematic due to signal interference from the batteries, which would cause costly redesigns and divert resources from other advancements.

Shapiro added the necessity of AM radio is diminishing with the advent of digital and streaming options, which many consumers now prefer. He argued a requirement for AM radio could hinder the state's broader efforts to manufacture and transition to electric vehicles and focus on pertinent issues.

"In Michigan and Ohio, or for anyone working in the auto industry, this is something which is an expensive distraction," Shapiro contended. "It's more of a Washington beltway phenomena, rather than any real problem that Americans want their members of Congress to focus on."

Shapiro emphasized AM radio is not going away and thinks simpler solutions like sellers' disclosures or plugging in an AM radio would be less costly. He added a balanced approach is needed to electrify vehicles while satisfying the radio industry, and respecting consumer choice and market dynamics.

A new Virginia law protects residents from utility shutoffs in extreme weather.

The law prevents utility company shutoffs when temperatures are at or below 32 degrees and at or above 92 degrees. It also prevents shutoffs during states of emergency in response to public health emergencies. Virginia was one of 34 states with a shutoff moratorium during the pandemic.

Kajsa Foskey, economic justice outreach coordinator for the Virginia Poverty Law Center, said enacting this law cleared up some misconceptions.

"Most folks already thought that utilities couldn't shut them off on a day when it was too hot or too cold outside," she said. "So, what we've really done is just created some common-sense foundational protection so that all utility customers across the state know what their rights are."

Despite having some of these shutoff guidelines as unwritten rules, utility companies pushed back, saying it didn't allow them flexibility. Foskey said she thinks the state can build on this by including elements that didn't become law. This includes requiring data collection from utilities about who is being shut off, the frequency, reasons, and the amounts owed. She said this can help craft solutions for people facing shutoffs.

Rising utility prices concern advocates since this increases shutoffs. More than 750,000 Virginia families are energy cost-burdened, meaning they spend 6% of their income on utility bills.

Foskey said another removed part of the law would have reduced financial barriers to reconnection.

"When they try to get reconnected," she said, "not only do they have to pay that past-due amount that they couldn't afford to pay, they now also have to pay reconnection fees, late fees, security deposits, things that really just make the barrier to getting reconnected very high."

She added that this can prevent people from being able to afford everyday essentials such as food or rent. However, the new law has a provision for customers who received state energy assistance in the past year. They're eligible for having their deposit capped at 25% of what they previously owed to be reconnected, but this can only be used once every three years.

Minnesotans this month have a chance to share their thoughts on how the state should distribute home energy rebates. With federal incentives coming in, officials want to ensure equal access to new technologies.

Starting next Wednesday, the Commerce Department will host a series of public hearings on rebates funded through the Inflation Reduction Act. Mia Naseth-Phillips, the department's director of energy programs for inclusion and equity, said this aid can help eligible households get appliances and heating and cooling systems that reduce their energy burden. She said they especially want to reach people who otherwise couldn't afford emerging technologies that make a home's carbon footprint smaller.

"And that becomes a repeated theme," she said, "that, 'I'm having a hard time paying my bills. They're very high. How can I have something that is continually combating the high costs of energy use?'"

It isn't just affordability. Naseth-Phillips said messaging about home energy upgrades often doesn't reach underserved communities. The department hopes the meetings are informative as it gathers feedback on how the rebates should be carried out. Officials have said a challenge is creating a robust network of certified contractors trained for specific installations. A list of the hearing sites and times is on the Commerce Department website.

Eric Fowler, senior policy associate for buildings for the group Fresh Energy, said heat pumps are some of the more "glitzy" items getting attention these days. However, he cited other rebate opportunities that might not be as glamorous but still get the job done.

"These rebates can also help with insulation and air sealing," he said, "which are, depending on the state of your home, might be actually more important than a solar panel."

He said there will be chances to offset the cost of upgrading a home's electrical box, along with thicker wires, to accommodate increased use of clean energy sources.

The first hearing, next Wednesday, is in Minneapolis. Remaining events are spread out across the state, including St. Cloud, Bemidji, Fergus Falls and Duluth. A hearing in Mankato was scrapped and hasn't yet been rescheduled.

Fifth Third Bank just agreed to pay a $20 million fine to settle charges it forced car buyers to purchase unnecessary insurance and created fake accounts in customers' names.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said the bank required customers with car loans to buy insurance, even if they already had coverage or got their own within 30 days.

Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said some customers then could not afford the payments.

"There were about 1,000 consumers who had their cars repossessed," Shahan recounted. "Most people rely on their car to get to and from work, and get their kids to school, and get to medical appointments. So that is really devastating when they lose their car."

In a statement, Fifth Third Bank said it shut down the protection insurance program in 2019 and is taking action to set things right. The money from the fine will go to a fund to reimburse 35,000 customers who were harmed. The court order also bans the company from setting employee sales goals incentivizing fraudulently opening accounts.

Shahan pointed out car dealers sometimes make verbal promises differing from the written contract or fail to even print out the financing paperwork. She wants people to know they cannot be required to buy insurance if they already have coverage.

"The best way to avoid all these scams is join a credit union, get your own financing, and deal with a reputable bank," Shahan recommended. "Don't let the dealer get financing for you."

In 2015, Fifth Third Bank was ordered to pay more than $21 million in fines for discriminatory auto loan pricing and for illegal credit card practices.