7 ms·

Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

61 points by MiguelX413 2y ago

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Let’s be honest - we all know the “market share limitations” are just a construct to eliminate Tesla from eligibility, not something to actually help other automakers - which would not make sense anyways since Tesla has a better product and is the only one manufacturing in CA. This is obvious political discrimination and it shouldn’t be legal. We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  Should it be more or less protected than race? Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043336212/tesla-racial-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043336212/tesla-racial-discr...
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Should it be more or less protected than race? Equal. > Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter. I don’t see evidence for this. Sure any examples of discrimination like those in the article are bad. Is it deserving of $137 million in punitive damages that are arbitrarily decided? I don’t think so. But regardless of that case, I am fairly certain most people in Tesla and Musk himself feel race should be a protected class.
    - yyuugg 2y ago
      Arbitrarily decided is how all judicial and jury decisions are made. They're all arbitrary. There are no objective court cases like this one. We have a justice system, it arbitrates. Sometimes those decisions are surprising. But like, using arbitrary in this way suggests you don't like the judicial apparatus generally.
    - Larrikin 2y ago
      Can you explain why systematic racism in one of the richest company's in the world isn't deserving of the amount of damages awarded and that the amount is arbitrary? Should the amount have been lower so they would effectively not feel it and feel emboldened to continue with their actions? Would you have been ok with a lower fine and jail time for anyone in the org chart that knew?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- _mlbt 2y ago
  It's not the first time that California government officials have held Elon Musk's political beliefs against him and his companies... https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-00183371 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m... It's absolutely disgusting whether you agree with his politics or not. As Americans we're better than this.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > concerns that all SpaceX launches would be considered military activity, shielding the company from having to acquire its own permits, even if military payloads aren’t being carried. If that's accurate then the way they're holding it against him is making him follow the existing rules. But maybe that's a smokescreen? I'm unsure how to judge that situation. But for the topic article, if he's going to be inside the group of people that are cutting federal EV subsidies, I don't think he gets to complain about not getting EV subsidies.
    - mquander 2y ago
      I think tax rates should be higher. So does that mean I should have to pay extra taxes by myself and the rates for everyone else should stay the same?
      - igetspam 2y ago
        Are you a billionaire?
    - engineer_22 2y ago
      EV subsidies were intended to backstop the EV supply chain buildup. EV subsidies should be retired when EVs are economically viable on their own merits. We have had EV subsidies for 16 years. In my opinion 16 years is long enough for the experiment, and it is an appropriate time to discuss the usefulness of EV subsidies going forward.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  The 14th amendment equal protection clause can be used here to invalidate that part of the law after it is passed, if the plaintiff can find evidence from lawmakers that the law was about singling out Tesla, as opposed to it being happenstance from the metrics in the proposal
- lightedman 2y ago
  "which would not make sense anyways since Tesla has a better product" I had a different experience. Watching a Cybertruck which had flat-bottomed itself in sand as my Subaru winched it out made me think more about getting an F-150 lightning.
  - bagels 2y ago
    Not a Subaru?
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Do Subaru offer electric trucks? Both Cybertruck and F-150 are trucks, not cars or SUVs.
      - bagels 2y ago
        Well, the criteria seemed to be not getting stuck in sand is why I asked.
    - lightedman 2y ago
      I already have one, don't need two! Just got this one, to boot. Customized 2013 outback with rally off-road package (paddle shifters, better shocks, still same crummy articulation.) I was thinking more electric vehicle that can do off-roading. I'd love to see a small EV truck or wagon with its motor attached to an actual 4x4 transmission. Don't care if auto or manual (but no CVT please, I'm not entirely a fan of mine) but the slight loss of power and gentler acceleration of the tires actually helps when you're on stuff like sand. You don't want to instantly spin your wheels, even in tiny pulses. You want as even of a power profile as you want to stay on top and not dig yourself down like the Cybertruck did.
      - bagels 2y ago
        They don't have center diffs or transfer cases on electric vehicles because range would be harmed too much. Battery capacity is a real bottleneck that creates a lot of engineering challenges (must have an efficient drivetrain, efficient aero). Seems like they can program their way out of the lack of low gearing if they wanted too since you have good torque at low rpm with electric.
- afavour 2y ago
  Tesla have benefitted for years from their association with Musk. Deliberately so, their marketing has never been afraid to associate the two very closely when he’s perceived as a genius inventor, the real life Tony Stark, yadda yadda. It’s just come back to bite them. Specifically drawing a circle around “politics” seems like a very convenient opt-out clause. > We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait Just as soon as someone can define what “political views” are and aren’t, I guess? To choose an extreme example: if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected? It’s very, very difficult to define where “politics” starts and stops.
  - kbelder 2y ago
    > if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected? Bad views are protected. That's the point of it. Not difficult.
    - afavour 2y ago
      So racists are a protected class in this world? I’m alright without, thanks.
      - kbelder 2y ago
        Those professing unpopular beliefs and belonging to unpopular religions were the very first 'protected class' listed in the constitution. Not really a 'class' though, since the protection applies to everybody.
        afavour 2y ago
        So racism is just an “unpopular belief” now? Got it, got it. Still a no from me though, thanks.
- bagels 2y ago
  It's probably both? These kind of incentives were in place when the only player was Tesla.
- root_axis 2y ago
  > we all know the “market share limitations” are just a construct to eliminate Tesla from Based on what? > We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations. Why would we want to do that? It's also totally impractical because everything is politicized.
- tyronehed 2y ago
  [dead]
- Stratoscope 2y ago
  > Tesla has a better product Isn't there room for a different "better product" for each individual? You may like a MacBook and I may prefer a ThinkPad. One is not better than the other, it depends on our individual needs. My Kia EV6 is a much better car for me than any Tesla. Just a few of the many reasons: Physical controls that are so much like my old gas Kia: A stalk for the lights. Another for the wipers. Plenty of buttons on the steering wheel that I can find by touch. And regen paddles like the gear shift paddles on some gas cars, so I can adjust the regen level without taking my eyes off the road. I only rarely have to use the touchscreen while driving. Dual displays, with essential driving information right in front of me, and "infotainment" functions on the center display. "Vegan suede" seats that feel like a high quality cloth seat and keep me cooler than a leather seat (vegan or not). Of course if a Tesla is a better car for you, I have no quarrel with that. I'm glad you found the best car for yourself, just as I have.
- yyuugg 2y ago
  [flagged]
theossuary 2y ago
The entire point of the original credit, before it was changed in the IRA, was to incentivize new entrants into the electric car space. Just because Tesla, Ford, Toyota, and GM were able to play politics and get a huge incentive in perpetuity instead, doesn't mean California has to make the same mistake with their own implementation. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2022-and-before https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...
ggm 2y ago
Surely the original credits model was based on volume? Ie, tesla are excluded from this because they've blown past the first 100,000 units sold. The point was to encourage diverse suppliers of models into the market. If this has the same goal (encourage new entrants, diverse sources) then what do you suggest they do?
- omarforgotpwd 2y ago
  The 200,000 unit cap was part of federal legislation, not state legislation. That was repealed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration, and replaced with a new system where you qualify for the credit based on the sourcing of your battery materials and other factors. Here, Newsom is proposing an entirely new incentive that he has designed specifically to exclude Tesla.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    The IRA was able to extend the subsidies for Tesla because it had the considerable resources of the Fedetal government behind it. A state is going to have fewer resources, and so it makes sense to go back to the original and less-generous regime. More practically, Tesla has already received a lot of subsidies and now has large sales and economies of scale, so it’s not very practical for California to allocate limited resources to Tesla rather than companies that haven’t yet reached scalable production. Of course the very best thing here would be for the Federal government to maintain the subsidies of the IRA, and then California wouldn’t have to step in with its more limited capabilities in the first place. If that’s important to Tesla, I’m sure they have someone who can talk to the incoming administration about it.
    - omarforgotpwd 2y ago
      It makes no sense to subsidize only the players who have low market share. Tesla is the only carmaker that still makes cars in California, why subsidize foreign cars at the expense of California workers… using their own tax dollars? The only justification for such harmful economic policy is political retaliation against Musk. But it is not the role of the government to use taxpayer funds for political retribution against opponents.
yongjik 2y ago
That's incredibly petty and I like it. Half of America has only contempt for anyone who tries to play nice, get played, and cries that it's not fair. If you want to win, you have to play to win. If you want people to stop listening to Elon Musk, you have to make him a loser. It's time Democrats took the lesson.
- someguydave 2y ago
  Can you think what would happen if your enemies applied this logic to you and your friends?
  - yongjik 2y ago
    You mean, like the current status of America?
  - borski 2y ago
    Yes, and it’s happened twice in eight years.
  - okdood64 2y ago
    Where have you been the last 8 years? This is exactly what "your enemies" (in your context) have been doing.
  - griomnib 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - adastra22 2y ago
      What does that have to do with anything?
      - yyuugg 2y ago
        Less than one percent of Americans are trans, yet republicans have put forth hundreds of bills to make their lives difficult. The parent is suggesting that the other side does already do the "imagine if..." thing.
SergeyKa 2y ago
CA didn't need EV credits to help electrification, could just waive 10% sales tax on EVs...
- adastra22 2y ago
  And nationalize PG&E to get rid of exploitative power rates.
  - jjav 2y ago
    > And nationalize PG&E to get rid of exploitative power rates. This needs to be highlighted more. Electricity is so expensive with PG&E that it is going to hold back anything that needs electricity. A few more rounds of price hikes and we'll be at $1/kWh! If the PG&E price increases continue in their current pattern, in less than ten years my PG&E monthly bill will be larger than my mortgage! This is not sustainable.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Earlier price hikes this year were explicitly structured to capture all the "lost" revenue from solar. Basically if you have solar panels and are selling the power back to the grid, the various fees make it cost the same as if you just bought the power from PG&E in the first place. It is insane that California utilities commission lets them get away with this. Blatant corruption.
SirWart 2y ago
Why should California taxpayers subsidize other Californians to buy EVs that are made in other states? Like if you care about emissions aren't the cars made in California using California's relatively green electricity, higher worker standards, and short distance to travel after manufacture better than ones made elsewhere? Even if you don't want to support Tesla, not even having a carveout for cars manufactured in the state seems insane.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Going a step further, why should there be tax incentives at all for a product that is wildly popular and seeing adoption even without a tax credit? These credits were introduced back when the field was new and the presumption was some government influence was necessary to jumpstart mass production.
  - czhu12 2y ago
    Perhaps one can see it as the inverse of a tax on ICE vehicles without adding a tax? It will be revenue negative for the state but I think the net effect on consumers would be the same? I guess one could argue that a tax on ICE vehicles are to pay for the externalities of pollution
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Taxpayers pay for the tax credit. An ICE tax would be added revenue.
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    > why should there be tax incentives at all for a product that is wildly popular and seeing adoption even without a tax credit? To reduce air pollution and combat climate change. To encourage ICE manufacturers to switch.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      The point is that the tipping point has already been reached. People who want electric vehicles are going to buy one, with or without the tax credit. Those who don't (e.g. because they can't have a charger where they live) aren't going to be swayed by the tax credit. It's not clear it has any effect on EV adoption anymore.
asteroidburger 2y ago
Twice recently I've traveled by air to visit an ill family member in CA. Both times I've reserved a hybrid, but given a "free upgrade" to an EV because the hybrids were gone. I stayed with family who don't have any charging infrastructure at home. The two DCFCs in town were constantly busy any time of day I tried them. My only saving grace was that the rental facility was apparently aware of this sort of problem, and preemptively told me to not worry about bringing it back charged. I love my EV that I daily drive back home, but if I, someone who already has the apps and knows how things work, have a problem with it, it's gonna really suck for those who don't. CA should really consider improving local charging infrastructure before sponsoring more EVs on the road.
- echelon 2y ago
  I don't see how America will smoothly transition to EVs. It feels like we'll live in an ICE/EV dichotomy for a long time. EVs work great for a lot of people, but not everyone with an ICE vehicle wants an EV. Given the current status quo, some of them will never want an EV. A significant number of homes only have street parking available, thus no place to plug in. Not having access to home charging makes EV ownership a burden. A lot of people live in massive multi-family dwellings, where charging infra is difficult or impossible to provide for all residents. If every resident switches to an EV, that's either a lot of load or everyone is left fighting over a limited number of charging stations. Up north, EV range drops 30-50% during the winter. Maybe that's not a problem if you don't drive much, but most EVs already have shorter ranges than gas. It seems incredibly impractical to have to schedule your life around EV shortcomings.
  - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
    Economics teaches us that the cost of something is often its opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a world that refuses to stop emitting greenhouse gases because its "impractical to schedule your life around it" gets to pay the costs of climate disaster, food shortages and such. That cost is much higher, but in the future so (perhaps irrationally) time-discounted to appear lower currently.
  - infotainment 2y ago
WinstonSmith84 2y ago
Promoting competition is always good for the end consumer, and certainly Tesla doesn't need any help in that regard. As for the politicization of this company through his owner, that law is nothing more than a small speed bump because for the 4 next years, people will be outraged the other way around - no doubt that a lot of laws will be passed to favor Tesla (and SpaceX, Starlink, etc.)
madaxe_again 2y ago
Politically, I generally put my chips down on the liberal side of things - and this ain’t it. This is the kind of stuff that makes you go “maybe Ayn Rand had a point”. Arguably, the only reason Musk has decided to wade into politics is exactly this kind of shit - how can one build a business in an arbitrarily regulated environment, where it’s one rule for me, and one for thee? The regulatory environment is supposed to be impartial, and to act for the greater good - not to be a political weapon to wield against your enemies. Things which spring to mind: - the FCC excluding starlink from rural broadband subsidies - never ending DFEH investigations in California - disproportionate NHTSA scrutiny compared to other automakers and self-drive systems - federal EV tax credit exclusion - FAA foot-dragging over starship I’m not saying that these are universally regulatory harassment, but one can readily see from how his perspective this paints a pretty damning overall picture, and I can’t say that in his shoes I wouldn’t be going the same way.
- tzs 2y ago
  Starlink not getting rural broadband subsidies is an example of the regulatory environment being impartial and applying the same rules to everyone. There were minimum performance requirements attached the subsidies and Starlink fell short. The FAA has processed Starship matters about as fast as the process similar things for other companies. Tesla hasn't faced any more scrutiny from NHTSA than anyone other carmaker who has put a beta purported full self driving system in production cars sold to the public.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    The measurement time for performance was 25/26 for RDOF.

61 points by MiguelX413 2y ago

Let’s be honest - we all know the “market share limitations” are just a construct to eliminate Tesla from eligibility, not something to actually help other automakers - which would not make sense anyways since Tesla has a better product and is the only one manufacturing in CA. This is obvious political discrimination and it shouldn’t be legal. We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations.

Larrikin 2y ago
Should it be more or less protected than race? Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043336212/tesla-racial-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043336212/tesla-racial-discr...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Should it be more or less protected than race? Equal. > Tesla as a company seems to think protected class doesn't matter. I don’t see evidence for this. Sure any examples of discrimination like those in the article are bad. Is it deserving of $137 million in punitive damages that are arbitrarily decided? I don’t think so. But regardless of that case, I am fairly certain most people in Tesla and Musk himself feel race should be a protected class.
  - yyuugg 2y ago
    Arbitrarily decided is how all judicial and jury decisions are made. They're all arbitrary. There are no objective court cases like this one. We have a justice system, it arbitrates. Sometimes those decisions are surprising. But like, using arbitrary in this way suggests you don't like the judicial apparatus generally.
  - Larrikin 2y ago
    Can you explain why systematic racism in one of the richest company's in the world isn't deserving of the amount of damages awarded and that the amount is arbitrary? Should the amount have been lower so they would effectively not feel it and feel emboldened to continue with their actions? Would you have been ok with a lower fine and jail time for anyone in the org chart that knew?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
_mlbt 2y ago
It's not the first time that California government officials have held Elon Musk's political beliefs against him and his companies... https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-musk-spacex-00183371 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m... It's absolutely disgusting whether you agree with his politics or not. As Americans we're better than this.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > concerns that all SpaceX launches would be considered military activity, shielding the company from having to acquire its own permits, even if military payloads aren’t being carried. If that's accurate then the way they're holding it against him is making him follow the existing rules. But maybe that's a smokescreen? I'm unsure how to judge that situation. But for the topic article, if he's going to be inside the group of people that are cutting federal EV subsidies, I don't think he gets to complain about not getting EV subsidies.
  - mquander 2y ago
    I think tax rates should be higher. So does that mean I should have to pay extra taxes by myself and the rates for everyone else should stay the same?
    - igetspam 2y ago
      Are you a billionaire?
  - engineer_22 2y ago
    EV subsidies were intended to backstop the EV supply chain buildup. EV subsidies should be retired when EVs are economically viable on their own merits. We have had EV subsidies for 16 years. In my opinion 16 years is long enough for the experiment, and it is an appropriate time to discuss the usefulness of EV subsidies going forward.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
yieldcrv 2y ago
The 14th amendment equal protection clause can be used here to invalidate that part of the law after it is passed, if the plaintiff can find evidence from lawmakers that the law was about singling out Tesla, as opposed to it being happenstance from the metrics in the proposal
lightedman 2y ago
"which would not make sense anyways since Tesla has a better product" I had a different experience. Watching a Cybertruck which had flat-bottomed itself in sand as my Subaru winched it out made me think more about getting an F-150 lightning.
- bagels 2y ago
  Not a Subaru?
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Do Subaru offer electric trucks? Both Cybertruck and F-150 are trucks, not cars or SUVs.
    - bagels 2y ago
      Well, the criteria seemed to be not getting stuck in sand is why I asked.
  - lightedman 2y ago
    I already have one, don't need two! Just got this one, to boot. Customized 2013 outback with rally off-road package (paddle shifters, better shocks, still same crummy articulation.) I was thinking more electric vehicle that can do off-roading. I'd love to see a small EV truck or wagon with its motor attached to an actual 4x4 transmission. Don't care if auto or manual (but no CVT please, I'm not entirely a fan of mine) but the slight loss of power and gentler acceleration of the tires actually helps when you're on stuff like sand. You don't want to instantly spin your wheels, even in tiny pulses. You want as even of a power profile as you want to stay on top and not dig yourself down like the Cybertruck did.
    - bagels 2y ago
      They don't have center diffs or transfer cases on electric vehicles because range would be harmed too much. Battery capacity is a real bottleneck that creates a lot of engineering challenges (must have an efficient drivetrain, efficient aero). Seems like they can program their way out of the lack of low gearing if they wanted too since you have good torque at low rpm with electric.
afavour 2y ago
Tesla have benefitted for years from their association with Musk. Deliberately so, their marketing has never been afraid to associate the two very closely when he’s perceived as a genius inventor, the real life Tony Stark, yadda yadda. It’s just come back to bite them. Specifically drawing a circle around “politics” seems like a very convenient opt-out clause. > We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait Just as soon as someone can define what “political views” are and aren’t, I guess? To choose an extreme example: if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected? It’s very, very difficult to define where “politics” starts and stops.
- kbelder 2y ago
  > if I’m a racist that’s bad but if I believe in the political concept of a whites-only ethnostate is that protected? Bad views are protected. That's the point of it. Not difficult.
  - afavour 2y ago
    So racists are a protected class in this world? I’m alright without, thanks.
    - kbelder 2y ago
      Those professing unpopular beliefs and belonging to unpopular religions were the very first 'protected class' listed in the constitution. Not really a 'class' though, since the protection applies to everybody.
      - afavour 2y ago
        So racism is just an “unpopular belief” now? Got it, got it. Still a no from me though, thanks.
bagels 2y ago
It's probably both? These kind of incentives were in place when the only player was Tesla.
root_axis 2y ago
> we all know the “market share limitations” are just a construct to eliminate Tesla from Based on what? > We need to change the law to treat political views as a protected trait, to protect individuals and organizations. Why would we want to do that? It's also totally impractical because everything is politicized.
tyronehed 2y ago
[dead]
Stratoscope 2y ago
> Tesla has a better product Isn't there room for a different "better product" for each individual? You may like a MacBook and I may prefer a ThinkPad. One is not better than the other, it depends on our individual needs. My Kia EV6 is a much better car for me than any Tesla. Just a few of the many reasons: Physical controls that are so much like my old gas Kia: A stalk for the lights. Another for the wipers. Plenty of buttons on the steering wheel that I can find by touch. And regen paddles like the gear shift paddles on some gas cars, so I can adjust the regen level without taking my eyes off the road. I only rarely have to use the touchscreen while driving. Dual displays, with essential driving information right in front of me, and "infotainment" functions on the center display. "Vegan suede" seats that feel like a high quality cloth seat and keep me cooler than a leather seat (vegan or not). Of course if a Tesla is a better car for you, I have no quarrel with that. I'm glad you found the best car for yourself, just as I have.
yyuugg 2y ago
[flagged]

theossuary 2y ago

The entire point of the original credit, before it was changed in the IRA, was to incentivize new entrants into the electric car space. Just because Tesla, Ford, Toyota, and GM were able to play politics and get a huge incentive in perpetuity instead, doesn't mean California has to make the same mistake with their own implementation. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2022-and-before https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...

ggm 2y ago

Surely the original credits model was based on volume? Ie, tesla are excluded from this because they've blown past the first 100,000 units sold. The point was to encourage diverse suppliers of models into the market. If this has the same goal (encourage new entrants, diverse sources) then what do you suggest they do?

omarforgotpwd 2y ago
The 200,000 unit cap was part of federal legislation, not state legislation. That was repealed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration, and replaced with a new system where you qualify for the credit based on the sourcing of your battery materials and other factors. Here, Newsom is proposing an entirely new incentive that he has designed specifically to exclude Tesla.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  The IRA was able to extend the subsidies for Tesla because it had the considerable resources of the Fedetal government behind it. A state is going to have fewer resources, and so it makes sense to go back to the original and less-generous regime. More practically, Tesla has already received a lot of subsidies and now has large sales and economies of scale, so it’s not very practical for California to allocate limited resources to Tesla rather than companies that haven’t yet reached scalable production. Of course the very best thing here would be for the Federal government to maintain the subsidies of the IRA, and then California wouldn’t have to step in with its more limited capabilities in the first place. If that’s important to Tesla, I’m sure they have someone who can talk to the incoming administration about it.
  - omarforgotpwd 2y ago
    It makes no sense to subsidize only the players who have low market share. Tesla is the only carmaker that still makes cars in California, why subsidize foreign cars at the expense of California workers… using their own tax dollars? The only justification for such harmful economic policy is political retaliation against Musk. But it is not the role of the government to use taxpayer funds for political retribution against opponents.

yongjik 2y ago

That's incredibly petty and I like it. Half of America has only contempt for anyone who tries to play nice, get played, and cries that it's not fair. If you want to win, you have to play to win. If you want people to stop listening to Elon Musk, you have to make him a loser. It's time Democrats took the lesson.

someguydave 2y ago
Can you think what would happen if your enemies applied this logic to you and your friends?
- yongjik 2y ago
  You mean, like the current status of America?
- borski 2y ago
  Yes, and it’s happened twice in eight years.
- okdood64 2y ago
  Where have you been the last 8 years? This is exactly what "your enemies" (in your context) have been doing.
- griomnib 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - adastra22 2y ago
    What does that have to do with anything?
    - yyuugg 2y ago
      Less than one percent of Americans are trans, yet republicans have put forth hundreds of bills to make their lives difficult. The parent is suggesting that the other side does already do the "imagine if..." thing.

SergeyKa 2y ago

CA didn't need EV credits to help electrification, could just waive 10% sales tax on EVs...

adastra22 2y ago
And nationalize PG&E to get rid of exploitative power rates.
- jjav 2y ago
  > And nationalize PG&E to get rid of exploitative power rates. This needs to be highlighted more. Electricity is so expensive with PG&E that it is going to hold back anything that needs electricity. A few more rounds of price hikes and we'll be at $1/kWh! If the PG&E price increases continue in their current pattern, in less than ten years my PG&E monthly bill will be larger than my mortgage! This is not sustainable.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Earlier price hikes this year were explicitly structured to capture all the "lost" revenue from solar. Basically if you have solar panels and are selling the power back to the grid, the various fees make it cost the same as if you just bought the power from PG&E in the first place. It is insane that California utilities commission lets them get away with this. Blatant corruption.

SirWart 2y ago

Why should California taxpayers subsidize other Californians to buy EVs that are made in other states? Like if you care about emissions aren't the cars made in California using California's relatively green electricity, higher worker standards, and short distance to travel after manufacture better than ones made elsewhere? Even if you don't want to support Tesla, not even having a carveout for cars manufactured in the state seems insane.

adastra22 2y ago
Going a step further, why should there be tax incentives at all for a product that is wildly popular and seeing adoption even without a tax credit? These credits were introduced back when the field was new and the presumption was some government influence was necessary to jumpstart mass production.
- czhu12 2y ago
  Perhaps one can see it as the inverse of a tax on ICE vehicles without adding a tax? It will be revenue negative for the state but I think the net effect on consumers would be the same? I guess one could argue that a tax on ICE vehicles are to pay for the externalities of pollution
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Taxpayers pay for the tax credit. An ICE tax would be added revenue.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  > why should there be tax incentives at all for a product that is wildly popular and seeing adoption even without a tax credit? To reduce air pollution and combat climate change. To encourage ICE manufacturers to switch.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    The point is that the tipping point has already been reached. People who want electric vehicles are going to buy one, with or without the tax credit. Those who don't (e.g. because they can't have a charger where they live) aren't going to be swayed by the tax credit. It's not clear it has any effect on EV adoption anymore.

asteroidburger 2y ago

Twice recently I've traveled by air to visit an ill family member in CA. Both times I've reserved a hybrid, but given a "free upgrade" to an EV because the hybrids were gone. I stayed with family who don't have any charging infrastructure at home. The two DCFCs in town were constantly busy any time of day I tried them. My only saving grace was that the rental facility was apparently aware of this sort of problem, and preemptively told me to not worry about bringing it back charged. I love my EV that I daily drive back home, but if I, someone who already has the apps and knows how things work, have a problem with it, it's gonna really suck for those who don't. CA should really consider improving local charging infrastructure before sponsoring more EVs on the road.

echelon 2y ago
I don't see how America will smoothly transition to EVs. It feels like we'll live in an ICE/EV dichotomy for a long time. EVs work great for a lot of people, but not everyone with an ICE vehicle wants an EV. Given the current status quo, some of them will never want an EV. A significant number of homes only have street parking available, thus no place to plug in. Not having access to home charging makes EV ownership a burden. A lot of people live in massive multi-family dwellings, where charging infra is difficult or impossible to provide for all residents. If every resident switches to an EV, that's either a lot of load or everyone is left fighting over a limited number of charging stations. Up north, EV range drops 30-50% during the winter. Maybe that's not a problem if you don't drive much, but most EVs already have shorter ranges than gas. It seems incredibly impractical to have to schedule your life around EV shortcomings.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Economics teaches us that the cost of something is often its opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of a world that refuses to stop emitting greenhouse gases because its "impractical to schedule your life around it" gets to pay the costs of climate disaster, food shortages and such. That cost is much higher, but in the future so (perhaps irrationally) time-discounted to appear lower currently.
- infotainment 2y ago

WinstonSmith84 2y ago

Promoting competition is always good for the end consumer, and certainly Tesla doesn't need any help in that regard. As for the politicization of this company through his owner, that law is nothing more than a small speed bump because for the 4 next years, people will be outraged the other way around - no doubt that a lot of laws will be passed to favor Tesla (and SpaceX, Starlink, etc.)

madaxe_again 2y ago

Politically, I generally put my chips down on the liberal side of things - and this ain’t it. This is the kind of stuff that makes you go “maybe Ayn Rand had a point”. Arguably, the only reason Musk has decided to wade into politics is exactly this kind of shit - how can one build a business in an arbitrarily regulated environment, where it’s one rule for me, and one for thee? The regulatory environment is supposed to be impartial, and to act for the greater good - not to be a political weapon to wield against your enemies. Things which spring to mind: - the FCC excluding starlink from rural broadband subsidies - never ending DFEH investigations in California - disproportionate NHTSA scrutiny compared to other automakers and self-drive systems - federal EV tax credit exclusion - FAA foot-dragging over starship I’m not saying that these are universally regulatory harassment, but one can readily see from how his perspective this paints a pretty damning overall picture, and I can’t say that in his shoes I wouldn’t be going the same way.

tzs 2y ago
Starlink not getting rural broadband subsidies is an example of the regulatory environment being impartial and applying the same rules to everyone. There were minimum performance requirements attached the subsidies and Starlink fell short. The FAA has processed Starship matters about as fast as the process similar things for other companies. Tesla hasn't faced any more scrutiny from NHTSA than anyone other carmaker who has put a beta purported full self driving system in production cars sold to the public.
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  The measurement time for performance was 25/26 for RDOF.