4 ms·

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 t

by 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 That was repealed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration, and replaced with a new system where you qualify for the credit based on the sourcing of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.
    - kzs0 2y ago
      Why? It fosters competition and considering Tesla was heavily subsidized during its early years, it makes sense its competitors should have similar shots
      - omarforgotpwd 2y ago
        Subsidies should not be used to decide winners and losers. There should be an equal playing field for all companies. When the government starts deciding winners instead of the market, things start falling apart fast.
    - tzs 2y ago
      It makes sense for the same reason that Musk reportedly endorsing Trump's plan to kill federal EV subsidies makes sense. Tesla is profitable enough that Musk believes that Tesla will do fine without subsidies. Not so for most other EV makers--they are still at the stage where they are figuring it out and not yet reaping economies of scale. Musk believes that removal of subsidies will greatly hurt them. If a state wants to encourage a healthy multi-company competitive EV market it makes sense to design the state subsidy program so that the benefits go toward making that happen which in the case of the current EV market means not subsidizing any company whose EV market share is about the same as that of everyone else combined.
      - teractiveodular 2y ago
        I'm not sure why you're bring downvoted, since Musk is on the record saying exactly this. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-elon-musk-supports-trump-ending-ev-tax-credits-2024-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-elon-musk-supports... Whether he actually believes this or is just claiming to believe this to placate Trump is another question.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Let me underline this. Tesla was once a company that was a shining star of environmental hope. The legacy of Tesla providing economic paths to viable EVs shielded the company from the, uh, controversy of its CEO, which my comment history has a history of somewhat reluctant defense. Tesla is no longer that company. It is a barrier and a hinderance to EV adoption. Tesla is a luxury car company that is only interested in establishing economic moats to its relative monopoly of EVs in America. - They no longer have any drivetrain or battery technological advantage in the marketplace. They possibly have a minor economic advantage in packaging/integration than US competitors, but while I would once say they had a two year lead on US competitors, they have less than a year now I would roughly guess. - They DESPERATELY want to keep Chinese EVs out of the marketplace, who have superior economics, possibly superior or at least equal drivetrain/system integration ability, and likely better and more flexible battery pack architectures especially for all the chemistry types (NMC, LFP, Sodium Ion). Thus they want tariffs. - Tesla has no plan for a mass market city car and other mixed mode electric transportation like motorcycles and mopeds. This is the car of the EV revolution, powered by the revolutionary economics of the sodium ion battery, which should cost 1/3 or less of NMC once it scales. The city car, which I'm actually envisioning as a 10-15k car with 200 miles or range, would help push out USED ice vehicles from the system, not just take a share of new ICE car sales. - Kind of related to the city car, the EV revolution requires the realization of the cheaper-than-ICE car. Tesla is possibly able to do this, but shows no inclination to deliver this. China or a US-China car company partnership is probably what will deliver this. Tesla is only interested in resisting this prospect. - IMO Tesla could have pushed its brand and battery economics to lots of two-stroke engine tools and taken the electric lawnmower / leafblower / etc from the "luxury green virtue signalling" category like eGo brands, to a "beats ICE tools". - Tesla is opposing subsidies, which from a mass market replace-ICE standpoint are absolutely still needed, especially since the total-ownership factor of EVs is now superior in the general sense. But buyers need the immediate price superiority to seal sells. - Tesla's supercharging network is one of its moats already, and it has done some nods to opening it, but generally Tesla's expansion of the supercharger network hasn't really exploded beyond the needs of what it thinks its own EVs need. Arguably it has disrupted or resisted universal plug interfaces and other standards in favor of its standard. You can say Tesla isn't obligated to live up to any of this, but their double-mouthed CEO has spouted ideals for a decade, and to some degree they delivered in previous years, but it is clear to me that in recent years they are no longer in the "do no evil".

by ggm 2y ago

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.
  - kzs0 2y ago
    Why? It fosters competition and considering Tesla was heavily subsidized during its early years, it makes sense its competitors should have similar shots
    - omarforgotpwd 2y ago
      Subsidies should not be used to decide winners and losers. There should be an equal playing field for all companies. When the government starts deciding winners instead of the market, things start falling apart fast.
  - tzs 2y ago
    It makes sense for the same reason that Musk reportedly endorsing Trump's plan to kill federal EV subsidies makes sense. Tesla is profitable enough that Musk believes that Tesla will do fine without subsidies. Not so for most other EV makers--they are still at the stage where they are figuring it out and not yet reaping economies of scale. Musk believes that removal of subsidies will greatly hurt them. If a state wants to encourage a healthy multi-company competitive EV market it makes sense to design the state subsidy program so that the benefits go toward making that happen which in the case of the current EV market means not subsidizing any company whose EV market share is about the same as that of everyone else combined.
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      I'm not sure why you're bring downvoted, since Musk is on the record saying exactly this. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-elon-musk-supports-trump-ending-ev-tax-credits-2024-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-elon-musk-supports... Whether he actually believes this or is just claiming to believe this to placate Trump is another question.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Let me underline this. Tesla was once a company that was a shining star of environmental hope. The legacy of Tesla providing economic paths to viable EVs shielded the company from the, uh, controversy of its CEO, which my comment history has a history of somewhat reluctant defense. Tesla is no longer that company. It is a barrier and a hinderance to EV adoption. Tesla is a luxury car company that is only interested in establishing economic moats to its relative monopoly of EVs in America. - They no longer have any drivetrain or battery technological advantage in the marketplace. They possibly have a minor economic advantage in packaging/integration than US competitors, but while I would once say they had a two year lead on US competitors, they have less than a year now I would roughly guess. - They DESPERATELY want to keep Chinese EVs out of the marketplace, who have superior economics, possibly superior or at least equal drivetrain/system integration ability, and likely better and more flexible battery pack architectures especially for all the chemistry types (NMC, LFP, Sodium Ion). Thus they want tariffs. - Tesla has no plan for a mass market city car and other mixed mode electric transportation like motorcycles and mopeds. This is the car of the EV revolution, powered by the revolutionary economics of the sodium ion battery, which should cost 1/3 or less of NMC once it scales. The city car, which I'm actually envisioning as a 10-15k car with 200 miles or range, would help push out USED ice vehicles from the system, not just take a share of new ICE car sales. - Kind of related to the city car, the EV revolution requires the realization of the cheaper-than-ICE car. Tesla is possibly able to do this, but shows no inclination to deliver this. China or a US-China car company partnership is probably what will deliver this. Tesla is only interested in resisting this prospect. - IMO Tesla could have pushed its brand and battery economics to lots of two-stroke engine tools and taken the electric lawnmower / leafblower / etc from the "luxury green virtue signalling" category like eGo brands, to a "beats ICE tools". - Tesla is opposing subsidies, which from a mass market replace-ICE standpoint are absolutely still needed, especially since the total-ownership factor of EVs is now superior in the general sense. But buyers need the immediate price superiority to seal sells. - Tesla's supercharging network is one of its moats already, and it has done some nods to opening it, but generally Tesla's expansion of the supercharger network hasn't really exploded beyond the needs of what it thinks its own EVs need. Arguably it has disrupted or resisted universal plug interfaces and other standards in favor of its standard. You can say Tesla isn't obligated to live up to any of this, but their double-mouthed CEO has spouted ideals for a decade, and to some degree they delivered in previous years, but it is clear to me that in recent years they are no longer in the "do no evil".