Raphael Stevens

In this articleELMSShares of Electric Last Mile Solutions popped on their trading debut Monday on the Nasdaq, adding to a growing list of speculative electric-vehicle start-up companies to go public through deals with special purpose acquisition companies.The Michigan-based company plans to begin production of a small electric commercial van at a factory in Indiana this fall, according to ELMS CEO James Taylor. The updated plant last produced gas-guzzling Hummer SUVs in the mid-2000s.Shares of the company — ticker symbol “ELMS” — popped during Monday morning trading before losing nearly all of their gains by midday. The stock rallied again in the afternoon, closing up by 13.4% to $11.56 a share. Taylor, a former executive with General Motors, said such pricing volatility is expected until the company can separate itself from other EV start-ups.”We’re going to be in the wind that will blow one way, it’ll blow another way for the next few months, until we produce evidence and tangible proof of our business plan,” he said Monday afternoon during a phone interview. “Until then, we’ll probably just bounce around whatever is going on in the space.”Taylor said the company is different from other EV start-ups because it is concentrating exclusively on commercial vehicles. Its electric van also is based off a vehicle already being produced by Chongqing Sokon Industry Group Stock in China.The ELMS Urban Delivery, anticipated to launch later this year, is expected to be the first Class 1 commercial electric vehicle available in the U.S. market and will be produced at the Company’s facility in Mishawaka, Indiana.Electric Last Mile Solutions”We require much less capital. We have a break-even point much earlier and, frankly, our plan from day one has been very, very conservative,” he said during an interview Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “Our overall risk is much, much lower than the other entrants in this space from an EV standpoint.”ELMS agreed to go public through a reverse merger with blank-check company Forum Merger III Corp. in December that valued the EV company at $1.4 billion.When the deal was announced, investors were bullish on EV start-up companies such as ELMS. However, that bullishness has turned to skepticism this year following SPAC-backed automotive companies such as Lordstown Motors and Canoo changing business plans and ousting top executives amid inquiries by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. There’s also more competition coming in the EV market from established automakers such as GM and Ford Motor.Taylor said ELMS is “very pleased” to have obtained its cash and closed the deal when it did instead of trying to do so now.”I’m glad we’re not starting a SPAC today,” he said. “No question, there’s been some challenges in a few of the SPACs.”The deal provided ELM with $379 million in gross proceeds, including $155 million from private investors such as BNP Paribas Asset Management and Jennison Associates. More

High earners in high tax states cheered the news last week that Sen. Bernie Sanders included relief from the state and local tax cap in his budget.But the numbers suggest Sanders is only considering a partial reduction in the cap. And the latest proposal being discussed in Congress would do little to help the top earners who account for the largest share of SALT deductions.Sanders’ $6 trillion budget included $120 billion for SALT relief over five years. The provision boosted hopes in states like New York, New Jersey and California that the progressive wing of the Democratic party is open to eliminating the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions. The cap was part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and created an effective tax hike for many high-earners in high-tax states.Yet Sanders’ $120 billion provision would cover only a partial repeal. The Tax Policy Center estimates a full repeal of the SALT cap would cost about $450 billion over the first five years, while the Tax Foundation estimates it would cost about $460 billion over five years. So Sanders’ plan would represent less than a third of the expected cost of repealing the cap.A caucus of 30 Democrats and Republicans have banded together to form a SALT caucus aimed at the cap’s repeal. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J. — one of the chairs of the caucus — and others say they won’t sign a big new spending or tax bill without a repeal of the SALT cap.More progressive members of the Democratic party have criticized such a proposal as a tax gift to the wealthy, since 57% of the benefits of a repeal would go to the top 1% of earners.The latest compromise under discussion — and likely the one favored by Vermont’s Sanders, according to tax experts — is establishing an income threshold of $400,000 a year. The cap would be lifted entirely for those making less than $400,000 a year, while tax filers earning more would still be subject to the $10,000 cap. The income threshold would help insure that the benefits of a SALT repeal don’t flow mainly to the rich.Gottheimer told CNBC on Monday he continues to support a full repeal rather than an income threshold. He said even a $400,000 income threshold would hurt the middle class, since the super-earners in New Jersey and other high-tax states support social programs through their outsized tax payments. He said many of the rich appear to be moving out of the state looking to pay less in taxes.”It’s not just about the impact on income levels,” Gottheimer said. “It’s having a huge impact on people leaving states like mine. As a result, when people leave, it has a big effect on schools, hiring law enforcement and firefighters because the tax base drains out when people move to Florida and Texas and the Carolinas like we’re seeing.”An income threshold would also create an “income cliff” for those who make just over $400,000.Jared Walczak, the Tax Foundation’s vice president of state projects, said a New York tax filer making $399,000 and paying $45,000 in state and local taxes would be able to deduct their SALT if $400,000 threshold were established. But someone making $400,001 a year would pay $12,000 more in taxes a year, since they would still be subject to the $10,000 SALT cap.”Even under this plan, most of the benefit would flow to those who are relatively near the threshold,” Walczak said. More

The U.S. is “never going to have zero” new daily Covid cases, Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CNBC on Monday.”We’re always going to have some level of spread,” the former FDA chief said, predicting infections will become endemic, meaning they will remain present in the American population. Seasonal flu, for example, is an endemic respiratory illness.Gottlieb’s comments come as concerns increase about the Covid delta variant, first discovered in India and now wreaking havoc in the U.K. It’s starting to circulate in the U.S., threatening to cut into the nation’s hard-earned progress in reducing virus prevalence through mass vaccinations and other public health strategies.On “Squawk Box,” Gottlieb said that while the spread of the delta variant will continue to increase in the U.S., the response to new cases there may not follow the blueprint being used in other parts of the world. He pointed to Israel as one example. That country, which garnered acclaim for the success of its vaccine rollout, recently reinstated its indoor mask mandate, less than two weeks after first lifting it.”Israel is a poor proxy in terms of what they’re doing relative to our situation here, because Israel is really going for a situation where they want zero Covid,” said Gottlieb, who serves on the board of Covid vaccine maker Pfizer. “We’re not going to try to get this down to zero cases a day” in the U.S.”Israel is trying to get it down to zero cases a day, so that’s why you see them taking different kind of measures than us,” he added. “Hong Kong is trying to keep it out completely; that’s why they’re banning travel.”Despite predicting the U.S. will have “persistent infection,” Gottlieb said the nature of the cases, in both scale and geography, will vary significantly from earlier stages of the pandemic, which is defined as an epidemic gone global.”I don’t think we’re going to have a situation like we did last winter, where there’s 200,000 cases a day. I think we’re talking about tens of thousands of cases, perhaps, a day, here in the United States as it starts to take hold across the country,” said Gottlieb, who led the Food and Drug Administration from 2017 to 2019 in the Trump administration.The highest single day of infections in the U.S. was 300,462 on Jan. 2, according to Johns Hopkins University data. The most U.S. Covid deaths in one day was 4,475 on Jan. 12.Unlike earlier this year, the most-significant outbreaks are now likely to be “highly regionalized,” he added, hinging considerably on the percentage of a local population that has been vaccinated “There’s part of the country that are going to be largely impervious to a lot of spread, and other parts of the country that are more vulnerable.”CNBC Health & Science Read CNBC’s latest global coverage of the Covid pandemic:How the delta variant ‘exploded’ in the UK could be a blueprint for the U.S.FDA adds warning about rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccinesCDC says more than 4,100 people have been hospitalized or died with Covid breakthrough infections Covid is already deadlier this year than all of 2020. So why do many in U.S. think the problem’s over?The U.S. is averaging just under 12,000 new coronavirus cases per day, over the past seven days, according to a CNBC analysis of Johns Hopkins data. That figure is steady compared with one week ago. The seven-day average of new daily Covid deaths being reported in the U.S. is 306 — that’s up 9% compared with a week ago.Roughly 46% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated against Covid, while 54% has received at least one dose, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows. Crucially, about 78% of American age 65 and up have been fully vaccinated and nearly 88% have had at least one dose.Gottlieb said that even as the U.S. experiences new coronavirus spread, “that represents far less impact than it did a year ago because more of the vulnerable people who are going to be more susceptible to this infection now are protected through vaccination.”Disclosure: Scott Gottlieb is a CNBC contributor and is a member of the boards of Pfizer, genetic testing start-up Tempus, health-care tech company Aetion Inc. and biotech company Illumina. He also serves as co-chair of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings’ and Royal Caribbean’s “Healthy Sail Panel.” More

In this articlePFIZER-INPFEWalgreens healthcare professionals pass to each other the Pfizer-BioNTec vaccine against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at the Victor Walchirk Apartments in Evanston, Illinois, February 22, 2021.Kamil Krzaczynski | ReutersLONDON — Mixing and matching the coronavirus vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca-Oxford generates a “robust” immune response against the virus, a study led by Oxford University has found.Researchers running the Com-COV study — which is looking into the feasibility of using a different vaccine for the initial “prime” vaccination to the follow-up “booster” vaccination — discovered that alternating doses of the two vaccines generated strong immunity.However, the study found that the immune responses differed according to order of immunization, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot followed by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine generating the better immune response out of the two mixed schedules.Doses of the vaccines were given four weeks apart with data for a 12-week dose interval due soon, the researchers said after publishing their latest findings on the Lancet preprint server Monday.”Both ‘mixed’ schedules (Pfizer-BioNTech followed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Oxford-AstraZeneca followed by Pfizer-BioNTech) induced high concentrations of antibodies against the SARS-CoV2 spike IgG protein when doses were administered four weeks apart,” the researchers noted.”This means all possible vaccination schedules involving the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines could potentially be used against Covid-19.”The findings could add much-needed flexibility to vaccination programs around the world, according to Matthew Snape, associate professor in pediatrics and vaccinology at the University of Oxford, and chief investigator on the trial.CNBC Health & Science Read CNBC’s latest global coverage of the Covid pandemic:How the delta variant ‘exploded’ in the UK could be a blueprint for the U.S.FDA adds warning about rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna Covid vaccinesCDC says more than 4,100 people have been hospitalized or died with Covid breakthrough infections Covid is already deadlier this year than all of 2020. So why do many in U.S. think the problem’s over?”The Com-COV study has evaluated ‘mix and match’ combinations of the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines to see to what extent these vaccines can be used interchangeably, potentially allowing flexibility in the UK and global vaccine roll-out.””The results show that when given at a four-week interval both mixed schedules induce an immune response that is above the threshold set by the standard schedule of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.”The researchers noted that both mixed schedules induced higher antibodies than the “standard” two-dose Oxford-AstraZeneca schedule. Currently, the two doses required by the AstraZeneca vaccine are recommended to be given eight to 12 weeks apart. Previous clinical trials found the longer gap between doses increased the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine’s efficacy, to 82.4%, against symptomatic Covid-19 infection.The highest antibody response in the new study was seen after the two-dose Pfizer-BioNTech schedule, and the highest T-cell response was from an Oxford-AstraZeneca shot followed by Pfizer-BioNTech, the researchers noted, without giving further detail.The Covid vaccines currently authorized in the U.K. and U.S. stimulate our immune systems into generating antibodies to protect us from infection. Antibodies are produced by specialized white blood cells called B lymphocytes or B-cells. T-cells, meanwhile, are a second type of white blood cell that also plays an important role in our immune system; T-cells can both attack cells which have been infected with a pathogen or virus, such as Covid, and also help B-cells to produce antibodies.”These results are an invaluable guide to the use of mixed dose schedules, however the interval of four weeks studied here is shorter than the eight to 12-week schedule most commonly used for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. This longer interval is known to result in a better immune response, and the results for a 12-week interval will be available shortly,” Snape added.The U.K.’s vaccination program has been applauded for its speed and agility so far. The U.K. was quick to authorize and deploy vaccines and is now offering all over-18s their first shots while giving the remainder of people their second doses. To date, 84.1% of all U.K. adults have had a first dose, and 61.6% have had two doses of a Covid vaccine, government data shows.Given the U.K.’s easy access to Covid vaccines (it ordered 397 million vaccine doses from six separate vaccine developers) there are no plans currently to change the schedule of doses offered to people, England’s deputy chief medical officer, professor Jonathan Van-Tam, said in the release.”Our non-mixed (homologous) vaccination programme has already saved tens of thousands of lives across the UK but we now know mixing doses could provide us with even greater flexibility for a booster programme, while also supporting countries who have further to go with their vaccine rollouts and who may be experiencing supply difficulties,” he said.In May, researchers reported preliminary Com-COV data revealing more frequent mild to moderate reactions in mixed schedules compared with standard schedules, however, these were short-lived in duration.Read more: Mix and match Covid vaccine study finds increased risk of mild to moderate symptomsThe University of Oxford is leading the Com-COV study, run by the National Immunisation Schedule Evaluation Consortium, and it is backed by £7 million ($9.7 million) of government funding from the Vaccines Taskforce. More

In this articleMOPackages of Juul mint flavored e-cigarettes are displayed at San Rafael Smokeshop on November 07, 2019 in San Rafael, California. Juul, a leading e-cigarette company, announced that it is halting sales of their popular mint flavor e-cigarette after the release of two studies that showed a surge in teen use.Justin Sullivan | Getty Images News | Getty ImagesJuul Labs has agreed to pay North Carolina $40 million and change its business practices in the state.Regulators and health officials have blamed the company for the surging popularity of e-cigarettes among teens in recent years. In 2019, federal data found that more than 1-in-4 high school students had used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days, up from 11.7% just two years prior. As of 2020, that number fell to 19.6% of high school students amid greater regulatory scrutiny and the coronavirus pandemic.”North Carolina is now the first state in the nation to hold Juul accountable for its instrumental role in creating a youth vaping epidemic,” North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said at a press conference revealing the agreement Monday.North Carolina kicked off its investigation in 2018 and announced the lawsuit the following year. In May, the judge for the case ruled that Juul destroyed documents, provided thousands of pages of irrelevant information and ignored related court orders. The company faced millions of dollars in fines tied to that decision, but the agreement announced Monday will wipe that slate clean.Under the agreement, Juul will not be able to target its advertising to minors, use anyone in its marketing materials who is younger than 35 years old or pay for influencers to promote its products, among other restrictions. The deal also places limits on the number of devices and pods that North Carolina consumers can buy every month and year. The $40 million will go toward helping teens who are addicted to e-cigarettes, funding preventive programs and the cost of the litigation.”This settlement is consistent with our ongoing effort to reset our company and its relationship with our stakeholders, as we continue to combat underage usage and advance the opportunity for harm reduction for adult smokers,” a Juul spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC.The company also said it looked forward to working with Stein and with other manufacturers on developing potential industrywide marketing practices and that it supported the use of the money to reduce underage use.At least nine other states have followed North Carolina’s lead with their own suits, and a coalition of 39 states is currently investigating Juul.But those aren’t the only legal cases with Juul at the center. Tobacco giant Altria is squaring off against the Federal Trade Commission regarding its 2018 investment in the start-up. The agency is arguing that the Marlboro maker engaged in anticompetitive practices when the two companies were trying to strike a deal. Since it made the initial $12.8 billion investment in Juul, Altria has written down its value three times, slashing its value by $11.2 billion. More

In this articleVOW3-DECAP-FRSU-FRRNO-FRAn electric car from Renault being charged in Berlin, Germany, on April 10, 2020.Annette Riedl | picture alliance | Getty ImagesRenault announced Monday it had signed “two major partnerships” related to the design and production of electric vehicle batteries, becoming the latest automotive firm attempting to get ahead of the competition in the increasingly crowded field of e-mobility.In a statement, the French carmaker said it would partner with China’s Envision AESC, which is set to develop a gigafactory in Douai, northern France. Renault said this facility would have a capacity of 9 gigawatt hours by the year 2024 and aim to grow to 24 GWh by the year 2030.Envision AESC is part of the larger Envision Group, a self-described “greentech” firm headquartered in Shanghai. Renault said Envision AESC would invest as much as 2 billion euros ($2.38 billion) “to produce latest technology, cost-competitive, low-carbon and safe batteries for electric models.” Monday also saw Renault announce it had signed a memorandum of understanding to take a stake of more than 20% in a French firm called Verkor. Other shareholders in the company, which is based in the French city of Grenoble, include Schneider Electric, Capgemini, EIT InnoEnergy and Groupe IDEC. In its own statement on the deal, Verkor said: “Under the partnership, the construction of Verkor’s first Gigafactory will start in 2023. Initial capacity will reach 16 GWh, of which 10 GWh are for Renault Group, with a total annual capacity target of 50 GWh by 2030, of which 20 GWh will go to Renault Group.” The company added it would also push on with plans to construct a research and development facility focused on the design of “innovative battery cells and modules.” Read more about electric vehicles from CNBC ProWedbush says Tesla faces a ‘moment of truth’ in China with recallJPMorgan picks its favorite Chinese stocks on everything from hydrogen to EV batteriesHere’s an infrastructure-based way to play the electric vehicle takeover in the next decadeRenault is not unique in focusing on the production of batteries for electric vehicles. Back in March, Germany’s Volkswagen announced it was aiming to establish several “gigafactories” in Europe by the end of the decade.”Together with partners, we want to have a total of six cell factories up and running in Europe by 2030,” Thomas Schmall, who is CEO of Volkswagen Group Components, said in a statement at the time. This move, he added, would guarantee “security of supply.”According to VW it’s expected that, once fully up and running, the factories will be able to manufacture battery cells with a combined energy value of 240 gigawatt hours each year.All of the above comes at a time when governments around the world are attempting to ramp up the number of electric vehicles on their roads in order to tackle air pollution and move away from the internal combustion engine.The U.K., for example, has announced plans to stop selling new diesel and petrol (gasoline) cars and vans from 2030. The European Commission’s “Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy,” meanwhile, wants at least 30 million zero-emission cars on the road by 2030. Change does seem to be on the cards. At the end of April, a report from the International Energy Agency stated roughly 3 million new electric cars were registered last year, a record amount and a 41% rise compared to 2019. More recently on Monday, Wood Mackenzie said battery electric vehicles would become “the dominant form of road transport by 2050, accounting for 56% of all vehicle sales that year.” By contrast, internal combustion engine vehicles will make up just 18% of sales, it added.According to a report from the research and consultancy firm, there will be 875 million electric passenger vehicles on the road by the middle of this century, a figure that will be complemented by 5 million fuel cell vehicles and 70 million commercial EVs.”Net-zero is the new mantra and road transport is one of the low-hanging fruits,” Ram Chandrasekaran, who is head of road transport at Wood Mackenzie, said.”A growing list of countries and automakers are committing to carbon neutral targets and this has completely transformed the global road transport landscape,” Chandrasekaran added. More