13 ms·

Tesla pushes U.S. to boost fuel economy penalties

• 6d6b73 5y ago
  How about we push penalties misleading advertising and deceptive marketing that Tesla is know for?
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > How about we push penalties misleading advertising and deceptive marketing that Tesla is know for? Why are these issues in competition with one another?
  • rpmisms 5y ago
    > misleading advertising They notoriously don't advertise. Are you referring to the after-savings price calculator on the sales pages?
    • spoonjim 5y ago
      Probably the lies of “autopilot” and “full self driving.”
      • willcipriano 5y ago
        You didn't read the fine print, by self driving they mean it drives itself directly into the nearest emergency vehicle with pinpoint accuracy.
        • spoonjim 5y ago
          And the full is for the full body cast you’ll have if you’re lucky. Lol.
          • willcipriano 5y ago
            Just for posterity, this was posted an hour after these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28633640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28633640
            • spoonjim 5y ago
              LOL. Butthurt Tesla fanboys in this thread.
  • lostgame 5y ago
    Tesla...doesn’t advertise? I have never once seen an ad for Tesla.
    • the-dude 5y ago
      What do you think a product/brand website is?
      • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Per dictionary.com, the first definition of "advertisement" is "a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, or on the internet". So, their own website is not an advertisement by that definition. Their second definition: "a public notice, especially in print". So, yes, by that definition. The second definition is second for a reason, though: The first usage is more common. When people say "Tesla doesn't advertise", they mean the first definition. Trying to conflate it with the second definition does not take the discussion anywhere useful.
        • clouddrover 5y ago
          > Per dictionary.com, the first definition of "advertisement" is Not at all a compelling argument. Per the Oxford dictionary (https://www.lexico.com/definition/advertisement https://www.lexico.com/definition/advertisement), the first definition of "advertisement" is "a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy." Per Mirriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertisement https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertisement), the first definition of "advertisement" is "a public notice". Per Collins (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/advertisement https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/adverti...), the first definition of "advertisement" is "an announcement online, or in a newspaper, on television, or on a poster about something such as a product, event, or job." Per Cambridge (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/advertisement https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/advertis...), the first definition of "advertisement" is "a picture, short film, song, etc. that tries to persuade people to buy a product or service, or a piece of text that tells people about a job, etc."
  • gibolt 5y ago
    Have you seen that advertisements that traditional OEMs and dealers run? Have you visited a dealer?
    • kube-system 5y ago
      Let's read how two different automakers introduce their driver assistance features: > https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-cruise https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-... > Super Cruise is the first true hands-free driving-assistance feature for compatible roads vs > https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot > Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and full self-driving capabilities Both are SAE J3016 level 2 systems. This engineering standard calls this literally "driver support features" and says they are not "automated driving features". Tesla is really stretching per the SAE spec. https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/gallery/cm/articles/press-releases/2018/12/j3016-levels-of-automation-image.png https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/gallery/cm/articles/pre... Tesla is literally the only automaker that does business in the US that advertises their assistance system this way.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
• H12 5y ago
  Tesla are no angels, but it is nice to see an example where a large company has an inherent financial incentive to behave in an a broadly pro-society manner. Would be nice to see more companies lobbying against pollution and other negative externalities.
  • seph-reed 5y ago
    I wonder if a carbon tax which subsidizes low emission alternatives could get across this way?
    • dreyfan 5y ago
      You've just described Tesla's entire business model. They sell carbon credits to enable polluters to keep polluting.
      • seph-reed 5y ago
        For anyone else who'd never heard of carbon credits: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2020/03/13/want-to-understand-carbon-credits-read-this/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2020/03/13... So, if these carbon credits exist, is it possible to coinify them and boost their value? Because it would seem the more valuable they are, the more financial incentive there would be to reduce carbon emissions.
      • MetaWhirledPeas 5y ago
        I don't know if you meant it this way, but your statement comes across very negatively. Just a reminder that the carbon credits are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: give a leg up to green companies.
        • seph-reed 5y ago
          My mind is spinning with these carbon credit things right now. You can trade them! Like a stock market! If /wallstreetbets started buying all these up (not sure of the supply right now), they could fleece dirty industries.
• megablast 5y ago
  Just raise taxes on fuel. It has the added benefit of actually saving lives too. The higher the cost of fuel, the less people are killed by cars.
  • bpodgursky 5y ago
    This is, for better or for worse, a directly regressive tax in a way that is politically toxic.
    • cortesoft 5y ago
      There is a really easy solution to that - tax carbon, and put 100% of the revenue into a single bucket, divide that by the number of citizens, and give each citizen that amount. This means that it is a net positive for anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon, and incentivizes everyone to use less. Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon, so it will be a net positive for them.
      • mcguire 5y ago
        "Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon..." Do you have a citation for that?
        • cortesoft 5y ago
          There are quite a few: https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce45f8e6fc https://apnews.com/article/science-be099434a414a0cb647640ce4... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r... https://www.oxfam.ca/news/carbon-emissions-of-richest-1-per-cent-more-than-double-the-emissions-of-the-poorest-half-of-humanity/ https://www.oxfam.ca/news/carbon-emissions-of-richest-1-per-...
      • bpodgursky 5y ago
        > Poor people use way less than the average amount of carbon This is not true in a world where most white-collar workers have been working from home for two years (or, increasingly, can afford Teslas), and service employees have to drive to work every day. Look, I want a carbon tax. It's good on net. But it's regressive and the people will never vote to support it. I live in deep-blue WA and even here the public rejected it.
• paxys 5y ago
  > Tesla, which produces only electric vehicles, sells credits to other automakers to help them meet government vehicle emissions requirements, and says those credits are less valuable due to changes in rules made by former President Donald Trump's administration. Funny that Elon Musk is strongly critical of big government and regulatory bodies right up to the moment where it is better for his profits. FAA is bad for enforcing safety standards for rocket launches. NTSB and state transportation departments are bad for wanting to ensure safety in self driving testing and rollout. State health departments are bad for enforcing workplace covid mandates. Democrats are bad for incentivizing union labor in auto production. EPA is good for increasing the value of Tesla's emission credits. In fact they should be more strict! Although I guess there's nothing more American than wanting socialism for yourself, rugged individualism for everyone else. Considering his pro-environment stance I wonder how he would feel about removing massive subsidies on the coal sector, which produces 40% of the electricity needed to power his cars.
  • einpoklum 5y ago
    Judge people by their actions rather than their words. Talk is cheap etc. Also - the whole credits scheme is a way for the US government to legitimize continued massive environmental pollution and resource waste.
  • Grazester 5y ago
    Elon also called Biden "Sleepy Joe" over the weekend now his company that he is a big spokes man for and is actively involved in its running is making an appeal to the government. Elon will be Elon...
  • aww_dang 5y ago
    Isn't it a bit of, "Don't hate the player, hate the game"? The regulatory incentives are what they are. Democracy necessarily creates an incentive for lobbyists. Politicians and bureaucrats have similarly aligned incentives. Given these incentives, the outcome is almost entirely predetermined. Too much focus is put on the sales pitch and the bill of goods while the deliverables are ignored. Narratives and elite promotions take on lives of their own in the minds of the public. Observe the incentives and watch who gets paid. There's a strong chance that everything else is just marketing fluff.
• eibubuiduid 5y ago
  The way the US implements fuel economy rules are stupid. For example, a diesel motorcycle that gets 100 miles per gallon wouldn't meet standards. Our fuel economy laws are the primary reason people have been moved from fuel efficient cars to much less efficient SUVs. It's very, very stupid.
• Mikeb85 5y ago
  When are they going to push for taxes/penalties on power generated by coal?
  • eibubuiduid 5y ago
    Environmental laws have to punish individuals directly so that people feel that something is being done. For example, banning plastic grocery bags instead of plastic food packaging, even though food packaging is a significantly higher proportion of litter.
    • sschueller 5y ago
      The issue with plastic bags is overblown and banning them doesn't solve the actual issue it just makes as all feel like we are doing something. Waste management is the problem. Sure excessive use of plastic should be prevented but what is more important is what happens after it has been used. Landfills are a horrible solution as trash is in the open and can migrate to water ways etc. Ideally all trash should be incinerated and the waste gases cleaned and captured. The heat can be used to generate power. The plastic should also be manufactured in such a way that it burns as clean as possible.
  • burkaman 5y ago
    Can't always trust what Elon says, but allegedly he has lobbied Trump and Biden to institute a carbon tax https://electrek.co/2021/02/11/elon-musk-asked-biden-administration-implement-carbon-tax/ https://electrek.co/2021/02/11/elon-musk-asked-biden-adminis...
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • dillondoyle 5y ago
    When Joe Manchin can no longer hold the Senate hostage and Dems have larger majorities ;) But to be less flippant it does look like we are pushing with our European counterparts to build a framework with provisions to punish trade with countries that do not reduce coal power. That pressure + China's public marketing to become the new hegemonic power seems to have moved the needle. China just announced they won't fund new coal development which is a positive step forward, just not the giant marathon miles forward we need immediately.
• danans 5y ago
  It appears that the underlying question is over whether fuel economy fines should be inflation-adjusted. From https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions-idUSKBN29H2FR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions-idUSK...: The decision - announced eight days before President-elect Joe Biden takes office - follows a U.S. appeals court ruling in August that overturned the Trump administration’s 2019 decision to suspend a regulation that more than doubled penalties for automakers failing to meet fuel efficiency requirements. Congress in 2015 ordered federal agencies to adjust civil penalties to account for inflation. In response, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued rules to raise fines to $14 from $5.50 for every 0.1 mile per gallon new cars and trucks consume in excess of required standards. Automakers protested that 2016 hike, saying it could increase industry compliance costs by $1 billion annually. That's $1B out of Tesla's pocket, since they are a major recipient of fuel economy credits (the other side of the fuel economy penalties). You can see the status of all current penalties and credits here: https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/cafe_pic_home.htm https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/cafe_pic_home.htm
• beerandt 5y ago
  I'm sure this includes minimums for miles/kwh for electrics, right?
  • boplicity 5y ago
    That's really a separate issue, which has to do with a combination of enough zero carbon electricity generation, distribution, and storage. Though, I do wonder: Are there egregiously ineffecient electric vehicles currently on the market?
  • StillBored 5y ago
    To lazy to find it, but there are some youtube videos of a car reviewer doing cross country trips in tesla's to review the difficulty. They are generally favirable, while pointing out some of the possible issues (broken chargers!) that might cause problems. A year or so after the first one, he did the exact same road trip along the northern US to compare how well it worked in cold weather to determine how much effect it would have. (answer enough to be inconvenient but he also changed to a more optimal charging method to compensate). All that is to say, in the end he published how much it cost him for this road trip, per mile in charging fees and it ended up being something like 15% cheaper than driving a similar family sedan (30MPG IIRC) and buying gas. Two which, I would like to point out that gas taxes to pay for the roads he was driving on where likely more than 15% in most of the states he drove through. It might have been slightly more carbon friendly, but i'm a little tired of people with electric cars being given quantity discounts (if you will) buying from power generation mixes that are >50% carbon while those of us cooling our inefficient houses and powering our piggy computers are on tiered pricing models that rape us for excess consumption.
    • beerandt 5y ago
      >being given quantity discounts It's way more than that. Imagine trying to open a gas station without being required to provide restrooms, handicapped spaces, environmental permitting, and all the other headaches that come with opening any other business location, let alone the requirements that are gas station specific. Especially since time to charge basically guarantees the occupants will be getting out of the car, which isn't the case for 5 min fill-ups at gas stations.
• yawaworht1978 5y ago
  Another instance of Musk not believing in the free market. The other instances is when the companies take government money and contracts. It appears he only wants to keep governments out when it suits him, like exploiting employees.
  • adamsvystun 5y ago
    I disagree. Fuel emissions are an externality [1]. And for the free market to function, externalities should be appropriately (dis)incentivised. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp
  • Diederich 5y ago
    "free market" isn't a binary thing. There's a spectrum between free market and regulation. Many spectrums.
  • johnsimer 5y ago
    I'm not aware of Elon ever saying he's 100% free-market > "A carbon tax is needed to correct the unpriced externality & market will do the rest. The consequences of slow action are serious. In my opinion, we need to convert >80% of the global road, sea & air fleet to renewables by 2050." - Elon Musk, June 25, 2020. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1276221517932552192 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1276221517932552192 > [regarding supporting government breakup of monopolies/oligopolies]: ". . . I’m definitely against any monopolies/oligopolies where there is a low forcing function for improving customer happiness or an unpriced externality that consumes a common good (eg emissions)." - Elon Musk, May 15, 2020. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1261155900569640962 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1261155900569640962
  • pyronik19 5y ago
    I think its just fighting fire with fire, The big automakers were pushing to get all kinds of subsidies from the U.S. government for unionized labor....which excludes Tesla.... this just seems like Musk fighting fire with fire.
• Dopameaner 5y ago
  I dont understand why people get so defensive when it comes EV vs Fuel vehicles. My friend who is an asian immigrant working in Idaho, experienced quite a bit of friction when he announced that he bought a Tesla. Their major argument constituted how the tax benefits paid by US citizens were going for a Tesla owner (in this case being an immigrant.)
  • gibbonsrcool 5y ago
    A lot of people get their opinions from a chain of misinformation that starts from groups who are incentivized to keep the status quo. Even so, there are a lot more high leverage ways to spend tax money on reducing carbon than car rebates. Car rebates are a way to buy votes. I think it's pretty obvious that $7500 could be spent in way that reduces much more CO2 and doesn't benefit people that are already pretty well off.
    • kevstev 5y ago
      The rebates are more directly intended to spur an EV auto industry, preferably dominated globally by US auto makers though? And I think you could argue that they did a pretty good job of this- at the very least they seem to have fast forwarded EV market share by 5-10 years, allowing at least Tesla to bootstrap itself and spurring the big auto makers into the EV game in a real way. The way things were going until 2005ish, GM would create a lot of headlines by putting a battery into some golf cart that could barely handle a trip to the mall and back and then put up its hands and say "See this just isn't practical and this is the best our MIT engineers can do vaguely waves at its ICE car lineup" And through that lens, when it certainly felt that EVs were really going nowhere aside from a few prototypes that were completely uncompetitive, or a niche for really rich people, these subsidies have essentially launched a legit EV industry that can stand on its own, and the amount of carbon reduction that will lead to seems astoundingly cheap for the price paid. I guess you can always second guess what would have happened in the absence of these incentives, but to me they seem to have legitimately pushed forward the EV market quite a bit. Without these incentives and Tesla, I personally feel that the big automakers would have continued to pay lip service for another decade or two, maybe even three, until peripheral advances in battery technology made EVs too competitive to ignore.
• lscotte 5y ago
  Tesla shouldn't get a say. They don't produce cars that use fuel so this is purely and obviously self serving.
  • ajross 5y ago
    > Tesla shouldn't get a say. You make a fair point. But then again Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Obviously they get a say. Everyone gets a say. Even (hell, especially) for things that are "self serving". The government serves us all. We regulate for the benefit of society, not the industry being regulated!
  • Taywee 5y ago
    Of course it's self serving. Why would any company lobby for anything that doesn't benefit itself?
  • jjtheblunt 5y ago
    Isn't Tesla's "angle" that they sell clean-air ev credits to ICE vendors, which are being devalued by the delay?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • lkbm 5y ago
    Only companies being fined should get a say in what the fine is? That is the opposite of how you address self-serving behavior.
• kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  They need to just stop classifying cars as trucks.
• yawaworht1978 5y ago
  They don't push for stricter marketing regulations or more oversight regarding fsd. I have seen mentions of repairs here, just read a report from insurance companies recently. Tesla's or electric vehicles do not burn more often than other cars. The repairs are 10 percent more expensive and some of the repairs require electricians(not necessarily from Tesla). Conclusion was, if something breaks, it's really expensive, like some high voltage cables can easy cost 7k. I think Tesla gets too much negative press on this matter.
• Bostonian 5y ago
  Trying to increase profits by having the government outlaw your competitors is unethical.
  • johnsimer 5y ago
    Not moving as fast as you can to greenify your cars as an automaker is unethical.
  • jjtheblunt 5y ago
    I think that's not their complaint; I think they started selling EV credits that Tesla earns from the government to internal combustion engine companies (GM, Ford, etc.). Then the government changed the story by instituting a delay, which devalued what they had earned under the original rules. I believe they are proposing that changing the rules on them, because they did the work to be in compliance, is effectively punishing them financially for that work, indirectly.
    • mike_d 5y ago
      That is like wanting the government to step in because you bought a bunch of beanie babies and they went down in value.
      • keeganpoppen 5y ago
        maybe if the government is the one manufacturing the beanie babies...
    • ProAm 5y ago
      It's because without government subsidies in one form or another Tesla isn't profitable (not SolarCity, nor SpaceX)
      • jjtheblunt 5y ago
        how can you tell (i ask because I don't know how to read the published earnings report) ?
• AcerbicZero 5y ago
  A company wants to use regulation to harm their competitors?! How shocking. Sarcasm aside the only surprising part about this misuse of regulation is how blatantly obvious the motivations are. For what it’s worth I am not opposed to fuel efficiency standards, but it seems to make a lot more sense to just use the existing lever and raise gas taxes, instead of trying to circumvent them by applying pressure to the market directly.
  • SECProto 5y ago
    > it seems to make a lot more sense to just use the existing lever and raise gas taxes, instead of trying to circumvent them by applying pressure to the market directly. Note that the "fuel economy penalties" and regulations that Tesla is pushing for were an existing lever. The penalties were law from 2016, the Trump administration revoked the increase in early January of this year. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions-idUSKBN29H2FR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions-idUSK...
    • persedes 5y ago
      yeah, reading the article was a TIL for me too, Tesla is selling credits so other auto makers can meet emission standards. They're suing because the increased standards (and fines) that were delayed by the former administration made those less valuable.
  • Alex3917 5y ago
    Their competitors want to use regulation to harm Tesla, not the other way around. Their competitors are the ones who are unfairly making money by stealing from the public.
  • dr_orpheus 5y ago
    Yes, I assumed that is was a push to drive consumers to more electric cars by increasing the fuel economy penalties, not that they were making money directly from it. I did not realize that Tesla could sell credits to other companies to offset those penalties.
  • 5y ago
• 01100011 5y ago
  So I just assumed the lease on a Chevy Bolt so I could cheaply try an electric out for a year. So far so good. The biggest issue, and not a big one since I can charge at home, is that 80% of the chargers around are Tesla Superchargers. If Tesla wants to help the environment and boost EV adoption overall, they'll make their supercharger network available to other brands. I hear it is coming, but as far as I know I can't do it yet, even with an adapter. I totally understand Tesla prioritizing its customers with a better/faster charging experience, but building a private charging network makes me think they really don't give a shit about anything but Tesla.
  • bradlys 5y ago
    > but building a private charging network makes me think they really don't give a shit about anything but Tesla. duh? They're not a company for public good. They're a company to make money. We live in a capitalist society. How is that a surprise?
  • DarmokJalad1701 5y ago
    They offered it to other OEMs before in exchange for support for upkeep/expansion and none of them took them up on it.
  • makerofspoons 5y ago
    I'm a Bolt driver with the opposite experience- every charger around me is a ChargePoint, EVGo, or Electrify America. This isn't generally true across the country of course, but I generally drive in the Denver/Boulder, Colorado area which is somewhere I would expect considerable EV infrastructure. Some do have a single Tesla connector among a set of several J1772 connectors, although most commonly I see several J1772 connectors and one for Nissan Leafs.
• johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
  Great initiative... but if you really want Biden and his administration to listen to you, you probably shouldn't make fun of him on your twitter account with 60 million+ followers. [0] [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/09/20/elon-musk-taunts-biden-over-spacex-mission-sleeping-tweet/8416901002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/09/20/elon-mus...
• brocklobsta 5y ago
  Ahhh the old crony capitalist "regulate the competition" mantra. Et tu Elon?