> Now the program has announced the distribution of the grants, and unfortunately for Tesla, it didn’t make the cut and it’s not clear why. Having just moved it

> Now the program has announced the distribution of the grants, and unfortunately for Tesla, it didn’t make the cut and it’s not clear why. Having just moved its headquarters and new factory to the state should have at least levelled the playing field. But the linked article does explain why: it was first come first served and only around $20 million for the program in Texas, as part of a settlement for dieselgate. If moving their factory and headquarters into the state gave them higher priority in line wouldn't that be against the settlement terms that created the program? It would be weird for a settlement to have a provision like that. This is the linked Forbes article that seems to be the earlier source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/04/14/teslas-texas-charger-grant-applications-fail-its-bad-for-texas-but-reveals-teslas-super-low-costs/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/04/14/teslas... Some numbers show in there that it gets cheaper the more stations are in one place (N-plex), and Tesla's applications had the highest at 17-plexes of chargers. They also mention a 20% limit on electrical service upgrades, though I don't know if that would effect the 17-plex differently, or if it was already in a place with enough service, if they overprovision.