A consumer products group is suing to block the keystone of Colorado’s recycling expansion effort, the “producer responsibility” fee on packaging, saying its launch violates both the U.S. Constitution and the state law that enabled it. 

The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association, or ILMA, made up of packagers and sellers not part of the major oil companies, says Colorado’s $200-million-plus program starting this year unlawfully charges them fees without giving them any say in how the money is used. 

A similar suit by trade groups in Oregon secured a temporary injunction against that state’s producer packaging fee, and the lubricant trade group hopes to either begin negotiations with Colorado officials to alter the program here, or get its own injunction. 

Far from the frictionless fraction-of-a-penny fee that recycling advocates have described in Colorado, the lubricant trade group says, the multinational packagers dominating the private committees developing the plan are setting high fees that will have to be passed on to consumers.

Smaller, family-owned companies are shut out of the decisions, the trade group says, and will be hurt most by the system. Colorado’s producer responsibility concept, first passed by the legislature in 2022, uses the manufacturers’ self-administered packaging fees to fund a pool of money for grants to cities and nonprofits around Colorado to expand curbside and other easier recycling programs. 

The lubricant trade group for the largest oil and chemical companies has been given power in Colorado to set the packaging fee for all the related companies, and it comes to 56 cents a gallon, or 14 cents on a quart of oil, ILMA’s general counsel, Jeffrey Leiter, said in an interview. That will hurt consumer sales and also damage the smaller companies that have to pay the fees ahead of time before they get the money back in sales. 

A handful of states starting fee programs at different levels for companies doing business across the nation also violates  constitutional provisions for protecting interstate commerce, the trade group alleges. 

“Everybody agrees it’s worthwhile, but we need to find a better and more sustainable way to do this than the way they’ve structured this,” Leiter said. “There’s constitutional problems. There are transparency issues. Just a range of issues that have been brought out by not only ILMA’s lawsuit, but the one in Oregon. A number of states that are looking at this have said, wait a minute, let’s take time and do a better assessment of how this might work.”

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which must let the producers’ organization set the fees but which oversees the grant program, said it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The suit was filed in mid-March in Denver District Court. 

Colorado officials picked the Circular Action Alliance to administer the fee program. The alliance is dominated by some of the largest consumer packaging names in the world, including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Molson Coors and Colgate-Palmolive. 

The alliance’s budget for 2026 envisions fees raising $215 million to $267 million in the first year for distribution to reimburse existing and new community recycling programs applying for the money. By 2030, the annual budget from fees is expected to rise to between $300 million and $400 million. 

The group is working to set the internal fees on packaging based on volume and actual recyclability. Companies will have incentives to shave new packaging to lower their overall fees, as well as use more recycled products in new packaging. 

The lawsuit from the independent lubricant packagers says in part, that the health department “has compelled ILMA members to enter into a ‘take it or leave it’ contract to pay.” It argues the state is set to impose “exorbitant fees which have no connection to the actual costs of running a recycling program in Colorado as required by the act, and which violates the act’s requirement that no more than 5% of those fees be used to pay for administrative expenses.”

The suit also takes on bigger legal issues, saying the way the health department is carrying out the legislative act “also violated ILMA members’ fundamental right to due process of law under the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions.” 

Over the past few days, it’s felt like Hyundai was going to steal the New York Auto Show. A secret debut, so confidential that not even members of the press knew about it in advance. While we expected something along the lines of a production-spec Crater, the vehicle actually unveiled is even cooler than that. This is the Hyundai Boulder, a body-on-frame concept SUV aimed straight at the Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco.

It’s no secret that Hyundai plans on building a body-on-frame midsize pickup truck in America by the end of the decade, but it felt naive to imagine that the marque would only use that platform for one thing. The Boulder Concept isn’t confirmed for production, but it would be foolish not to build it for real.

Right off the rip, Hyundai nailed the styling. It’s blocky in all the right ways, upright in the manner of a Bronco or a Wrangler or a Land Rover Defender. Speaking of Bronco, there’s definitely a whiff of 2004 Bronco concept to the shape of the grille panel, but that’s probably fine. Huge fenders and curved rear quarter windows definitely help add distinction, and that’s before we get into the details.

In profile, the dominant force on the Hyundai Boulder is the presence of coach doors. Are rear-hinged rear doors practical on an off-roader? Regardless, they look awesome and they’re something you can just do when you’re starting with a ladder frame. Right above those doors, you’ll find safari windows to let a little more light into the cabin without being blocked by a roof rack. Placing these windows right above the passenger compartment is a smart translation of a cue previously seen on the Land Rover Defender. It feels like tribute, paying homage to pioneers of the segment.

While Hyundai hasn’t stated what’s powering the Boulder concept, a possibly production version certainly wouldn’t be all-show and no-go. Just check out those huge 37-inch mud-terrain meats, on par with the largest tires offered on the Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco. That’s the sort of size that isn’t chosen on accident, and a full-size rear-mounted spare tire signal genuine trail intent. Speaking of the rear, let’s talk about that fifth door. Not only is it hinged on both sides for convenience, the rear window can motor down into the door 4Runner-style for a breezy feel. It really does feel like Hyundai’s compiled a greatest hits album here, just about every feature loved on iconic 4x4s combined into one vehicle.

Moving inside the Hyundai Boulder Concept, it’s all surprisingly pragmatic. We’re talking rugged materials, grab handles, and plenty of interior storage. The multiple little gauge pods we saw on the Crater make a return, along with toggles for locking differentials and four-wheel-drive mode selection. There’s a little concept car flight of fancy to everything such as the ornateness of the shifter, but strip that away and it’s not hard to imagine the near future.

What’s more, there’s actually stuff underneath the Boulder. Long-travel remote reservoir dampers, a coil-sprung solid rear axle, huge upper A-arms up front. This looks like a platform made to actually go off-road, which is hugely exciting considering how many concept cars these days are just pusher models.

The more I look at the Hyundai Boulder, the more two distinct things become obvious. Firstly, Hyundai has a proper midsize off-road SUV concept for the 2020s before General Motors. That’s wild. Secondly, Hyundai needs to build this thing for real. With the off-road SUV market continuing to grow and a body-on-frame platform in development, there’s no reason not to. So come on, let’s see a version of this out on the trails in a few years.

Top graphic image: Matt Hardigree

The post The Hyundai Boulder Is A Body-On-Frame Bronco And Wrangler Rival That Deserves Mass Production appeared first on The Autopian.

It’s a weird time for electric cars in America. Honda just canceled its entire EV project, Volvo ditched the EX30, and Chevrolet’s set to discontinue the Bolt again shortly after bringing it back from purgatory. However, that doesn’t mean that some automakers aren’t trying to bring small EVs stateside, such as the Kia EV3. It’s essentially a subcompact hatchback-with-cladding laser-targeted at the new Nissan Leaf. However, it’s also launching in America with something almost all other entry-level EVs don’t offer. I’m talking about a performance variant, the EV3 GT.

Kia officially calls the EV3 GT an SUV, but that feels like a stretch. Sure, it’s 3.3 inches taller in stature than the dearly departed Fiat 500 Abarth, but that includes about six-tenths of an inch worth of roof rails. More importantly, it’s a whopping 25.3 inches longer than the Fiat. If I’ve done my math correctly, that’s 17.5 percent longer, 5.6 percent wider, and a 13.5 percent wider track. Proportionally and dimensionally, that’s hatchback stuff.

Granted, some Socrates will probably still argue that the criteria for an SUV lie in its acronym, at which point Plato will powerslide a Porsche Boxster into the Agora, popping the frunk to reveal a full keg tucked neatly in the luggage bay with enough spare room for several pizzas. See? Sport and utility. Even if we go by function, with no low range, no skid plates, and no real off-road pretensions, the Kia EV3 GT is almost a hot hatch, and one worth approaching with real curiosity.

Obviously, we’re looking at an electric vehicle, and its dual-motor all-wheel-drive system kicks out a respectable 288 horsepower. Based on that figure alone, I’d expect the zero-to-60 mph dash to happen in well under six seconds despite a somewhat porky curb weight. While an official weigh-in for the U.S.-spec model hasn’t been announced, the European version tips the scales at 4,409 pounds. Even though DIN curb weight and SAE curb weight have some measurement discrepancies, that still makes a Tesla Model 3 look feathery. Hey, an 81.4 kWh battery pack is an 81.4 kWh battery pack, even if 400-volt charging isn’t state-of-the-art.

However, the really interesting parts of the EV3 GT don’t lie in dragstrip prowess. For one, it has a similar sort of simulated manumatic mode as the ones in the EV6 GT and the Hyundai Ioniq 5 N. Now, this is something manufacturers can get extremely wrong, but everything I’ve driven on the Hyundai-Kia E-GMP platform with the feature has got it extremely right. It’s the sort of thing that adds dimensionality to what would otherwise be a fairly flat commuting experience.

Then there are the other typical performance accoutrements. Firmer MacPherson strut front and multi-link rear suspension, an edgier steering calibration, seats with taller bolsters, and large brake calipers. The EV3 GT doesn’t seem like just a go-quicker-in-a-straight-line proposition, and if its EV6 GT big brother is any indication, this subcompact performance EV should have some proper stick in the corners.

In keeping with other applications of the GT trim, the EV3 GT will be hard to pick out in traffic from its GT-Line sibling. There’s a splash of retina-searing green on the calipers, a few bits of unique trim, new wheels, a subtle badge, and that’s about it. Your coworkers wouldn’t need to know that you selected the hot version, and there’s something nice about that. More importantly, the interior’s outfitted like an actual car. A screen for your gauges and a separate one for infotainment, a top-level climate control display, a bunch of real buttons and knobs, shortcuts for important functions. Nothing inside looks obviously cost-cut, and that should pay dividends in user-friendliness.

Of course, curb weight is still a concern, but let’s not forget that this isn’t replacing a beloved combustion-powered hot hatch. The EV3 GT is Kia trying something it hasn’t really done before, and a performance EV in this sort of footprint with real buttons and stuff feels like something worth experiencing. It’s a gamble given the current state of the EV market in America, but automakers taking risks and doing completely new-to-them stuff is something I like to see. Expect pricing and further details to come later this year, closer to the EV3 GT’s on-sale date in late 2026. Who’d have thought that America’s first electric hot hatch would be a Kia?

Top graphic image: Kia

The post The Kia EV3 GT Is Basically A 288-Horsepower Hot Hatch And It’s Coming To America appeared first on The Autopian.

Gov. Jared Polis wants to prohibit Coloradans from using food-assistance benefits to purchase soda and other sugary drinks that are bad for their health. 

But getting buy-in from other state leaders to put the ban in place now hinges on the governor’s broader plan for curbing soda drinking not just for low-income people, but for all Coloradans, starting with those attending taxpayer-funded events.

An executive order that will address sugary beverages and promote healthy eating statewide is expected soon, though the governor’s office has declined to reveal details. A Colorado Sun request for public records about the upcoming executive order, filed through the Colorado Open Records Act, turned up “no public records responsive” to the request, the governor’s office said. 

But Michelle Barnes, the executive director of the Colorado Human Services Department, spilled the news during an intense debate March 6 among members of the nine-member, governor-appointed human services board about whether to ban the use of food stamps to purchase sugary beverages. 

Barnes, who was told by her staff during the meeting that she wasn’t supposed to mention the upcoming executive order after she mentioned it, was trying to tell the human services board that the governor wasn’t just targeting people on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP; he wants to limit soda drinking more broadly. 

“I don’t know if I can say this,” Barnes said. “The governor is working on an executive order that would take the SNAP restrictions and apply it to all state purchases. He’s looking to expand it throughout the state, so you can’t buy sugary beverages with taxpayer dollars, functions can’t have pop, functions can’t have diet pop.”

The governor’s cabinet, including leaders of the state departments of Agriculture and Health Care Policy and Financing, “have been persuaded” by the dialogue happening before the state human services board in the past couple of months about banning soda purchases, Barnes said. She said the executive order was nearly ready but was being reviewed by lawyers.

“You’re right, this does feel like we are only doing it to low-income people,” Barnes said. “So why wouldn’t we do it with all state purchases? We shouldn’t be buying it either.”

The board was so put off about enacting the restrictions only for “poor people” that after seven hours of debate and testimony at that March meeting, it pushed the vote to its April meeting, which is Friday. An executive order with strategies to limit sugary beverages statewide has not been announced in the meantime. And the vote on the change in SNAP rules was removed from this week’s board meeting. 

“This sugar plague is affecting all of us and yet we are going after poor people,” board member John Kefalas, also a Larimer County commissioner, said at the March meeting.

The human services department has until Aug. 7 to bring the issue back up for a vote of the board, which sets rules for human services programs. 

Polis, who sought and received approval from the federal government to ban the purchase of soda with food assistance, still supports the ban and said it’s part of a “broader strategy to improve the health of all Coloradans,” according to a statement from his office. 

“SNAP supports the nutritional needs of families struggling to put food on the table,” the governor’s office wrote via email. About 330,000 households in Colorado receive the food-assistance benefits.

Colorado has also asked the federal government to allow people with SNAP to use it to buy prepared hot foods, including rotisserie chicken, and to make it easier to buy local produce at farmers markets. “I hope that Colorado can proceed with these important waivers to help reduce diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay,” Polis’ office said. 

The upcoming executive order could include bans on sugary beverages at certain events or venues, and could promote sales of fresh foods grown by the state’s agriculture industry, according to people who are familiar with the planning process. 

Officials at the state human services department said the agency “stands ready to deliver a comprehensive policy package” to the human services board at a later date. 

Polis announced in August that he had won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the “healthy choice” plan for SNAP. He needed the human services board to put the rules in place, but the board stalled after dozens of opponents, including 27 state lawmakers who are Democrats, argued the ban was an overreach that would harm the dignity and autonomy of low-income families. 

The rule would prohibit the purchase of soda as well as juices with added sugars or artificial sweeteners. 

Hunger Free Colorado was among the opponents of the ban and praised the delay. “The board listened to the community’s concerns and chose dignity over stigma, and access over restriction,” the group’s senior public policy manager, Mariah Guerrero, said in a news release.

A Colorado law banning so-called conversion therapy to “cure” minors of being gay or transgender was struck down Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court, which determined that the law violates the First Amendment. 

“Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado’s. Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion. “Because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.”

Only one of the justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative-majority. Justice Neil Gorsuch, formerly of the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit based in Denver, wrote the majority opinion.

Justices had a spirited debate about the law for about 90 minutes in October. The case was initiated by a Christian counselor in Colorado Springs who “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” according to court filings. 

Kaley Chiles offers talk therapy and said she had the right to continue under the First Amendment. She does not offer aversion therapy, which is a controversial, psychological therapy that attempts to associate unwanted thoughts or feelings with negative consequences. In aversion therapy, therapists might use shock treatments or induced vomiting. 

Chiles is not attempting to “cure” people who do not want to be LGBTQ, but many people come to her for help because they struggle with gender dysphoria or sexual orientation that does not align with their religious values, her attorney, James A. Campbell with the Alliance Defending Freedom, argued before the court. 

Colorado’s law bans “these consensual conversations,” Chiles’ attorney argued, saying in court records that patients “seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires.” 

In Tuesday’s majority opinion, Gorsuch focused on the rights of free speech. 

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage,” Gorsuch wrote. “As a talk therapist, all Ms. Chiles does is speak with clients; she does not prescribe medication, use medical devices, or employ any physical methods … and nearly as clear to our eyes, Colorado seeks to regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech.” 

Colorado banned conversion therapy for minors in 2019 in response to a youth mental health crisis and “overwhelming evidence” that attempts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity can lead to increased depression and suicide. More than 20 states have similar laws preventing conversion therapy for children, which means the ruling in the Colorado case will affect nearly half of the nation. 

During the October hearing, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Colorado, six years since passing the law and three years since the legal challenge was filed, had not enforced it, and questioned whether the type of talk therapy Chiles provides would even be prohibited by the state ban. In response, Chiles’ attorney said Colorado was investigating anonymous allegations against Chiles’ practice. 

Sotomayor joined in Tuesday’s majority decision overturning the ban. 

The justices wrote that the Colorado law fails at being neutral — therapists could affirm children’s gay or trans identity, but were prohibited from helping them try to change it.

“The law prevents a therapist from saying she can help a minor change his same-sex orientation, but permits her to say that such a goal is impossible and so she will help him accept his gay identity,” the majority opinion states. “Colorado does not dispute that point.”

In her dissenting opinion, Jackson argued that Colorado has the “power to regulate the medical treatments that state-licensed professionals provide to patients,” and that it can decide to restrict what is a “dangerous therapy modality.” 

“Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional,” Jackson wrote.

While some free-speech groups were applauding the ruling, gay and trans advocacy groups, including from the National Center LGBTQ Rights, were speaking out against it.

“This decision is narrowly about how conversion therapy can be regulated. It does not mean that conversion therapy is safe or legal,” the center’s legal director, Shannon Minter, said in an emailed statement. “Conversion therapy is still medical malpractice and consumer fraud. Every major medical organization in this country condemns it.”

At least 12 research studies have found that conversion therapy causes harm, Colorado argued in the case. One study, including 27,000 transgender adults, found that receiving conversion therapy at any time in their life led to higher levels of psychological distress and suicide attempts, as well as a loss of faith in religious institutions. 

The law was previously upheld by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Colorado has been a battleground for other LGBTQ rights, including the case of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the baker in 2018. And in 2023, the Supreme Court determined the First Amendment protected a Colorado web designer who refused to design websites for gay couples.

A malfunctioning car that pulled to the shoulder of Colorado 115 likely ignited the fast-moving wildfire now burning across more than 7,000 acres south of Colorado Springs, officials said Tuesday evening.

Fire inspectors believe a spark from the car ignited dry vegetation along the highway last Wednesday, sending the fire toward Fort Carson, said Peter Wolf, an assistant fire chief at Fort Carson, during a town hall in Penrose.

As of Tuesday evening, about 240 firefighters from 25 agencies fighting the 7,385-acre fire have reached 30% containment, Wolf said.

Four helicopters are assigned to the fire with additional aircraft on standby at the Colorado Springs Fire Department if needed, he added.

“The number one goal … has been to secure Colorado 115 — to prevent any fire from crossing 115,” Wolf said. “We had adverse wind conditions Thursday morning and we had to make some decisions very rapidly as fire wanted to advance west.”  

As crews continue to work to strengthen the perimeter, the fire will continue to burn through vegetation near the interior of the area for several more days to weeks, he added. 

Aside from the wind, firefighters battling the flames faced challenging terrain. At times, the fire was burning along cliffs on a narrow section along the highway. Spot fires then dropped to the canyon below, Wolf said.

The fire sparked near mile marker 24 on Colorado 115, which connects Colorado Springs to Penrose. Crews worked to keep the fire on the east side of the road to protect homes on the west side of the road. Evacuations were lifted Monday afternoon for residents who were ordered to leave, the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office said. 

Colorado 115 is still closed as crews continue containing the fire, Lt. Col. Daniel Gonzalez,  Fort Carson’s director of emergency services, said. 

“This is a decision that’s going to be assessed daily,” Gonzalez said. “We want you to be safe to be able to travel up the highway and not have smoke blocking the road or the road impacted by the fire in some ways.”

When the highway does open, Gonzalez urged drivers to stay focused on the road despite the scorched landscape. 

“What we don’t want is someone to drive off the road because they’re staring at the fire,” Gonzalez said. 

No structures were lost in the fire and no injuries were reported, officials said. 

The fire is burning in parts of Fremont, El Paso and Pueblo counties. Temperatures in the 80s and 90s are expected across southern Colorado on Wednesday and Thursday before temperatures drop Friday.