Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

[r/cybertruck](https://www.reddit.com/r/cybertruck/) is now private. If you are unable to find it, here is a link to it. As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*

What a Socialist run State. How can Newsome get elected? He will run it in the ground and that State will go bankrupt. Too bad as such a beautiful State!

Yep, they got their own version of Animal Farm here in Cali.

Aligns with Elon stating Tesla doesn’t need credits

[deleted]

How about autonomous vehicle credits instead now, California?

You are talking to a mirror

This is likely unconstitutional Bill of Attainder to try to use marketshare to "punish" a specific company. Especially since Tesla's marketshare of all vehicles is tiny, even in California. Plus CA would be sued delaying any implementation and likely Tesla would win. And Republicans in Congress can write a law that supersedes California's law, which would completely justify Musk's switch to Republicans because of Democrat's use of lawfare against him and his companies.

Playing political favorites with industry didn't play out well on the national stage, I'm not sure why they'd want to reproduce that on the state level. Excluding the largest producer of EVs does nothing to help the environment. It reeks of playing the invisible hand, picking favorites, cheating competition. Also, the article calling Newsom a presidential hopeful is sort of funny. Even if somewhat popular in California, him and his policies poll terribly nationally. I'd go out on a limb and call him unelectable - his reputation is tarnished, especially with the current state of his state.

ALL EVs ARE EQUAL* but some EVs are more equal than others.

He is definitely unelectable as of today. He is just way out in left field and that would not go over well for the rest of the Country. I know of no one that wants to copy his policies, high gas prices, energy prices, crime, etc, etc…. Just a horrible Gov. Yet, the people of that State have spoken and elected him.

Feds practically did the very same thing by saying only ok for first 200k cars. Cap it at 6m evs and Tesla is excluded without "unfair" treatment. Congress cannot tell California how to spend it's own tax dollars collected. There are some interesting scenerios there but generally feds ain't tell ca or tx for that matter how to spend it's tax dollars.

Only Gavin Newscum can come up with something this petty and silly

Mr French Laundry

> Be the fifth biggest economy in the world just as a state. "California will go bankrupt I swear!" Seriously, nothing is going to ever happen to California. Worst case scenario they will lose a little of that economic strength. Maybe not be the fifth biggest economy. But California would literally have to be underwater to go bankrupt. Stop being so blind for your hatred of Gavin newsom and throwing all logic out the window. Im not going to even respond to your comment about it being such a socialist run state. Other than it makes you sound completely ridiculous. You can thank California's economy for literally propping up most other states in the US.

Market status has been done to limit credits before. It is probably totally legal

Feds can absolutely make it illegal to implement such a proposed scheme. And you can't pass a law that retroactively counts vehicles. And GM would likely oppose any big counts - after all, they hope to beat Tesla straight up on volume. At the federal level, this was done to get the tax credits passed under the Bush administration - and it was a mistake that many acknowledge, as it punished the pioneers and helped the laggards. It ended up having an opposite effect.

source?

Sell your shares!

https://preview.redd.it/vgt3of6vi43e1.jpeg?width=1320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39e78b8846b83254b43e2107b60d3be7fa632eca

Haha. - your whole statement is laughable and shows how biased and blind you are. Would take FL Gov over CA Gov any day of the week. And it is definitely a Socialistic state the way it is being run. Just plain sad. He would never get elected in hardly any other State.

Apparently not.

That doesn't exclude Tesla. That's a count... and that's something GM and Ford would likely oppose. And that's not what Newsom proposed today.

It includes a market cap. If they made more than 200k vehicles. Ford likely doesn’t make that many and they could limit it to under x amount of sales. It would be legal

Absolutely, they can pass retroactively, counting evs sold. Total sales in California can not exceed blah blah blah. Done. Doesn't matter anyway because Republicans would need to overcome the filibuster, which they don't have so it's gridlock all the way. Also, no one is spending political capital in congress to help musk... it's still ev we're talking about, so the red team doesn't want anything to do with helping evs. Doesn't matter if it was acknowledged as not great. It's what was done and what CA can do.

Does CA senate or local government have a fillabuster rule? It would be a state tax incentive not a federal one.

He said he‘d be ok if nobody else got no credits either.

I was talking about the feds in blocking CA. Right, it's a state incentive not feds so the feds generally have boo to say about it.

Yeah there wouldn’t be anything they could do to stop it

He said if oil and gas subsidies were removed as well. That's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.

Also... this isn't punishing Tesla. It's not like Tesla has to pay more taxes or something like that. It's that the customers that buy EVs can not get tax breaks for a car that was manufacured by a company that exceeds limits of x,y,z. Legally, there is much difference there.

If competitors are getting large enough credits, then Tesla will need credits to compete on price.

There is a notable difference between first X cars and market share. Market share is clearly targeted at Tesla. Now, is California allowed to create a credit that is explicitly intended to exclude Tesla? Maybe, but its certainly going to get more scrutiny around anti-competitive action.

[deleted]

By definition, this is a Bill of Attainder - it specifically targets a company without due process. What limits? How was that defined? And you cannot write laws like that. You can write laws where there is a limit to the number of credits - but you cannot write it to exclude a particular company, and you can't make it retroactive. You can say that in the future, we would give x number of credits per manufacturer, but that scheme would run afoul of GM and Ford.

Making it retroactive would make it fall precisely under Bill of Attainder and ex-post-facto laws. Newsom can try, but the lawsuits will delay implementation by years and likely will fail as it would be unconstitutional.

This proposal is to exclude vehicles based on manufacturer market share. Since over 50% of every electric vehicle sold in California is a Tesla, The intent to exclude Tesla is clear. I'm not sure how much Faith we should put in the claim that this is to encourage other manufacturers to ramp up EV production rather than a simple legislative Fu to musk

Incorrect. States cannot violate federal law.

When those limits were imposed, no manufacturer was anywhere close to the limits. So the limits were not written to specifically exclude any single manufacturer out. Tesla reached the limit first by outselling everyone else. So I doubt this new attempt by CA is going to fly considering they are openly saying the quiet part out loud. There will be legal challenges.

What Newsom proposed is not a market cap. And if it turns out to be a limit on future volume, GM, Ford, Rivian, and others hope to scale up - they need to in order to get to profitability. They would all likely oppose such a measure.

They only have to last to mid terms and I am pretty sure that they will do it by sales, tesla in CA by volume has by far the most sales, all they need to do is look at registration data and make a cap that cuts them out and it would be legal.

They can make a future count, but not by marketshare. You seem to be very confused. Look up what Bill of Attainder and ex-post-facto laws mean.

How am I confused, they can say the credit only applies to car manufacturers that have sold less than x amount of cars in the state and use the justification to “foster competition in the ev market” its not that hard to craft.

Like a true Californian, Newsome will do the virtue signalling with no change on the ground. It works out for him.

Real fascism

I remember that!

This is stupid and petty.

He also called state workers back into the office instead of allowing them to work from home... because what is better for the environment than forcing people to commute into the office.

Prohibitions against ex-post-facto laws means they cannot pass something retroactive. Otherwise, we can pass laws that say mlody11 by virtue of being mlody11 and previously posted the above comment belongs in jail.

There may be legal challenges, but that doesn't mean it's not ok. Governments impose limits all the time that count retroactively. E.g. if you took advantage of some tax credit, then you're not eligible for credit B. Very common.

There is a thing called states rights. States can spend their own money on whatever they normally want. Not sure what federal law would be violated by there. That's like saying, Colorado, you can't have any EV credits because the feds say so. That wouldn't fly either.

By definition, it's not. It's not naming the company. That's the definition. Sure you can, you can exclude swaths of people or companies, that's literally how most of our laws function.

I mean, we have anti trust laws that target market share companies. Are those anti competitive? Quite the opposite.

IANAL so I can’t comment on who would actually win that legal challenge. But I think it’s just a stupid policy in general - if you believe in climate change and you’re trying to incentivize more people in your state to switch to EVs, just give the credits to everyone.

Ah yes, punish millions of Tesla buyers / potential voters because you don’t like the CEO. Great way for a presidential hopeful to win votes! /s

Cool, now do it without using a name and see if that works.

Comments section is telling. Oof.

So, a bill that says companies beginning with T and ending in A do not qualify are legal in your book?

Yeah but they can withhold other funds in retaliation for how CA chooses to spend its own tax dollars collected.

newscum strikes again

Have to remember, Tesla is no longer a California EV company. The only California EV companies now, are Lucid and Rivian.

How so?

What's a valid objective reason to exclude the one EV company that manufactures cars in California?

What? You are completely not addressing what they are saying at all 🤦‍♂️

Elon said they don't need incentives so lets put his money where his mouth is at: if Tesla misses targets because of CA then Elon gets pushed out as CEO so investors can finally get a full time Tesla CEO. Tesla is resting on its laurels selling regulatory climate credits as it throws darts at AI and robotaxi pipe dreams instead of innovating their cars.

At least the CEO’s went back to office too, right?

Of course it would.. if such a federal law existed.

The model Y and the model 3 are the #1 and #2 best selling cars in CA by quite a bit - not sure Tesla market share is "tiny" here.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes. There are valid reasons for excluding Tesla - the goal is to ensure other manufacturers invest in EVs. Tesla is already well established, they don’t need help. Even if there weren’t any good reasons though, Elon chose to get heavily (and publicly) involved in politics. Did he think that would have zero consequences? He has become a massive liability for Tesla.

Again, it's not about the company name. It's about policy. If thr policy is, sold over x, probably fine. If you start putting in more things like sold over x, with employees y, assets z, that's when it starts to appear as if you're targeting a company. But merely on sales, probably fine I would guess. Reality is, it's an unknown and there will be challenges but imo if I say I want more electric car companies so established companies need not apply, I don't see the problem.

They can but they also ain't retaliate so easily. Also, why would team Red stick up for an electric car company. Not sure they care that much.

When they started generating profit they left CA so they didn’t have to pay taxes. After a decade of subsidies and favorable treatment for being here. And they’ve sold enough cars. They original programs were limited to 200k vehicles to help kickstart the movement. Also Tesla is pushing for killing the federal incentives to stifle competition so clearly they don’t want it.

And we can define “the market” with any number of characteristics that would create “monopolies” that would still not be legal. Apple has a monopoly of iOS devices - doesn’t mean the government can then regulate them as a monopoly. Furthermore, at issue here is that it isn’t legal to create laws based on what was before or target specific persons/companies, even if Tesla was a monopoly. For example, anti-trust laws have legally prohibited anti-competitive behavior of monopolies, but you can’t legislate marketshare. Otherwise, California could have passed laws that provided incentives for non-Microsoft operating system computers - and that wouldn’t be legal.

> Bill of Attainder and ex-post-facto laws mean. This is for a theoretical a new law. It would only be an ex post facto issue if they made the law so Tesla's qualified and then disqualified them after people started purchasing them under the assumption they qualified. Bill of Attainder only applies if they exclude Tesla directly. If some day it could apply to Ford, Rivian, VW, Lucid, etc. and the stated purpose of the law is create diverse manufacturing in EVs it's fine. More so assuming it goes both ways- that is if Tesla's marketshare dropped they would qualify again.

crafting laws becauase they didn't like the company's exist is petty. Pretty straightforward. The goal is more EVs and tesla makes the most EVs and has the most power over the market.

Competition is good and potentially oust Elon for the current direction of Tesla. Vaporware robots and Robotaxi pipedreams? The guy can keep his ridiculous shares as long as we get a fulltime CEO interested in developing great cars again and Tesla's original mission statement to accelerating energy independence. Cybertruck has been a huge disappointment for truck things and we still haven't gotten serious updates on the Roadster but I'm betting it's going to be a major let down too. Tesla Semi seems like it just awoken others in the industry to seriously develop theirs. Solar has been relegated to miscellaneous in their earnings calls despite acquiring/bailing out Elons family members solar company. All the hype behind Tesla has withered away now that competition has serious players. Tesla is living on government subsidies and now political bribery alignment

Can you find a single example of a subsidy that has ever applie like this for a thing (EVs) but was designed to exclude the biggest company in the space? Basically is there precedent? And if not why is that?

Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y are all make in Fremont CA.

Why wouldn't they? You do realize the UAW are aligned with team Blue don't you? And the UAW are embedded in every car company operating in America -except- Tesla.

Tesla believes nobody should get credits, it as to be all or nothing. They’re not going to shoot themselves in the foot and put themselves at an objective disadvantage.

"probably fine i would guess"... lol and you're real life job is what btw? You don't sound like a legal expert, and yet here you are acting like one XD you should probably shut up i would guess

That’s a lot of what ifs there. They could but most likely won’t. Small majority in the house and the senate isn’t as dominated as you think. And I doubt congress will address this in the next two years there’s bigger things they want to get to

I guess you haven't talked to a lawyer in a while. It's literally the running joke. Every answer is, "it depends," and "x is more likely than y", you'll rarely get a hard, fast answer. What do you do, good sir?

Compared to other companies in other countries, Tesla is a small EV maker.


Also, I never said I was a legal expert in this type of law. Also... sir, this is a reddit post, if you want a proper legal analysis.... Well, you've come to the wrong place.

Yes, but they are not a California company. Tesla is based out of Texas now.

Hell they get the largest amount and size charging stations out of all of the country, which tells you they must be selling a lot there.

How does proposing a new tax credit reduce the rate of EV adoption? Musk, not Newsom, is advocating for the removal of federal tax credits. The bill proposed here would be a replacement for the loss of incentives being pushed by Elon. It's unfortunate that Teslas won't qualify, but this bill would increase demand for non-Tesla EVs and therefore overall adoption of EVs.

Stupid and petty describes much of how the politics in this state works. I don't doubt that they will implement it and keep doing it until they get a slap on the wrist from the Feds. Intentionally singling out the company thats one of the biggest driver in moving people to EV because they're mad at the CEO is stupid and hypocritical. Then again it's California so I shouldn't be surprised.

He also attended parties during peak lockdown and allowed the Clippers arena a special exemption to serve liquor after 2am to their VIP lounge clients. Not to mention pads the PUC with PG&E chums who waive through any rate hikes and never hold PG&E accountable. He sucks.

Elon shouldn’t be pushing to eliminate the EV tax credit then.

Not a subsidy, but Florida passed a law to disband improvement districts that was crafted in such a way that the only one that qualified was Reedy Creek, i.e. Disney.

Wdym? Don't you know this sub has the highest percentage of constitutional lawyers on Reddit.

Tesla has positive cash flow and is already huge. We should help small companies or companies that still haven't made it yet. Not dump billions into huge profitable companies.

Made in CA but HQ is no longer in CA

With the removal of the federal tax credit we need to support home grown California EV makers like Rivian and Lucid to hold market share.

I’m sorry, but where in the “proposal” does it say they are attacking Tesla? I didn’t see that anywhere.

Watch what happens when Teslas biggest market (California) sees a 30-40% drop in sales. I wonder how many billions that will wipe off Elons wealth? Brings tears to my eyes 🐊

The feds have an entire program for defense spending dedicated to making sure smaller players get contracts. Promoting competition is a valid reason for choosing who to subsidize. Whether it's wise is a different question, but as long as you have some coherent rationalization you can get away with it. A bill of attainder also isn't just any bill targeted at an organization. As an example, a bill literally titled Defund ACORN Act survived in appeals court despite being literally targeted at, well, an organization called ACORN.

Perfect for Rivian to seize opportunity. Now make cheaper trucks *edit*

I doubt it, they are pretty far ahead of the competition (after benefiting from prior versions of the federal and state credits).

Aren’t they in favor or pushing to eliminate the federal incentive?

Why is Elon complaining? He said killing the federal tax credit was fine lol

Yep, so petty. Gotcha.

The credits are supposed to help drive EV adoption by making them more affordable for consumers, not “help small companies” or punishing people they don’t like. Thats the reason why there are income limits to the credits.

[deleted]

That it is

Economics? EV tax credits were always meant to be a way to subsidize them until they are profitable. Tesla is profitable. Time to show them the door. It is in the tax payers best interests now to have other major players in the market, therefore they are trying to help other manufacturers receive the same EV support that Tesla had benefitted from. The federal tax credit was put together the same way.

Lol so you want CA’s tax payer money to go to people buying 100k plus cars so Saudis can get a ROI? Or give tax payers money to a company that has been burning investors money since its inception and still doesn’t have a compelling product in the market. Just because you don’t like Elon you want to waste tax payers money?

Come now, we all know the stock price isn't tied to the performance of the company. It's a meme stock. There's zero justification for where it's at right now, and it's been like that for years now.

No, tax payer money should be used efficiently and not thrown away. Why is that people hate waste at work or in their personal budget but want the government to waste the money they pay them. If rivian or lucid want to build a more accessible (price wise) ev in California, hiring Californians then by all means they should get tax benefits but they are both not doing that

So what? The top 3 EV manufacturers for the US are Tesla, Ford, & GM. Out of those 3, only Tesla manufactures in California, and none have HQ in CA. Biden failed at limiting the EV credit to union-only builds because it was pandering at best and lawfare at worst. The same should happen here and probably will.

It's absolutely stupid and petty. Just like the decision to move Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter headquarters outside of California. Musk pissed in the eye of California and acts surprised that some people in power would wish to return the favor.

I doubt they can, they claimed that they recently reduced the price with their retooling but that was just smoke n mirrors as they ended up removing motors and reducing battery size to create a standard config that is still not 30% cheaper then the original one.

[deleted]

Sieze

Don't mistake me, I'm not defending Musk here. He's also stupid and petty but there's a difference between a CEO acting like a petulant child and the government doing it. One of the differences is the government is spending my money.

Didn’t get any credits when I bought mine in 21. Still bought it. Who cares.

That’s not what he said. He said he’s in favor of getting rid of ALL subsidies. Including for oil and gas.

Makes sense, but the people hold the government to a higher standard and should not have personal vendettas against individuals or companies.

That’s a slippery slope - the argument you’re making is “let’s handicap the current market leader who got to that position by innovating for a decade”. So the signal that sends to the Detroit 3 is “oh cool, even if we don’t innovate quickly and catch up, the Govt is going to handicap the market leader anyway and help us out, and so we can drag our feet even longer”.

And the most cost efficient way to achieve that is to help startups. Once the company is running production and is profitable the credits are not an effective spend.

You have been running up and down this thread arguing that there is some legal basis for this to be done while arguing against several other people who have provided at least two different real legal arguments (actual laws) for why this would be illegal lol. You can't actually point to any any legal precedent for a similar subsidy. And you haven't been able to actually make a legitimate argument against Bill of Attainder or Prohibitions against Ex-Post-Facto law as pointed out by others. You just keep spreading bullshit about how you think it's probably fine based off your hunches? Repeatedly, on every comment. Why? Why are you even giving an opinion on this when you haven literally 0 relevant knowledge on the subject? What exactly are you trying to do?

Man you really have no clue. Have you ever even been to California?

That will be using the money efficiently. Why pay 7500 per Tesla car when the company is not going anywhere with or without the credit.

I agree totally that the government should be better. Though I think people's opinions on government stunts like this are quite often related to how they feel about the affected parties.

Yes, I have been to California.

As if California was just minding its own business before Musk offended them for no reason.

Tesla basically created the modern EV market. You take them off the table and its questionable whether the alsorans could maintain it.

so ppl will incentivized to buy inferior EV to then complain EV suck lmao

Seize

watch Tesla keep growing in sales regardless because you know 1 state don't mean shit when their cars are wanted all over the world LOL

> It's absolutely stupid and petty. Just like the decision to move Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter headquarters outside of California. I mean, [do you blame him](https://x.com/LorenaSGonzalez/status/1259287879177531392)? Democrats clearly showed their true colors towards him when he wanted his factory re-opened like the rest of the state was doing back then.

Anti competitive too. Other manufacturers won’t have incentives to actually be cost competitive

California wants to reward green technology companies, especially ones that are based out of California.

I think I read that too, which I find funny Elon would advocate removal of the ev federal tax credits. I think it's better to have some sort of ev tax incentives instead of none, and if Elon suggests removing it, then why be surprised the new proposal trying to offset the loss but exclude Tesla

everyone would still love tesla if not for elon musk. he's pathetic. don't blame customers. blame elon.

I thought it all started with the San Diego legislator saying "f@ck you" to Elon over unions?

What does this have to do with socialism? When did California government seize the means of production? Smh.

Which companies produce more cars than Tesla? Please list them and the country they’re dominating the market in

Tesla has the highest margins in the industry. From a practicality standpoint, Tesla does not need subsidies for consumers purchasing their cars.

Yeah, if he bases his decision on a tweet by a state representative, I'd say that's a prime example of being stupid and petty. I also find it a bit interesting that if his main complaint was overregulation by local government that he chose to move to a state that doesn't even allow his company to sell its product directly to consumers.

Musk and his companies are public and private entities. The government cannot legally discriminate. Waste of time and resources because of course Tesla will sue and win in court

Pretty sure he did that for Twitter because a couple of his employees in San Fran literally got mugged right outside his building. And it’s just a hell hole of a city in general. Not to mention the taxes are abhorrent in Cali. Let’s not act like it was political. There were legitimate concerns regarding business and the wellbeing of his employees. Texas is just flat out better to run a business at.

Tesla also has the cheapest / best deals on the market. They build better cars for less.

There are plenty of great EV options outside of Tesla. And the one true competitive advantage Tesla had – the supercharger network – is now available to all of them. I have friends with MachEs, with EV6s, with Ioniqs – each of them considers their car the best one they've ever owned.

Who is winning at capitalism? CA and NY. Who has the highest taxes? CA and NY. What do you need to win at capitalism? High taxes. Why would anyone follow these loser states with low taxes?

Elon basically says nobody should get subsidies- which is ment as a subtle reminder of gas subsidies. He definitely wouldn’t want to be singled out from a subsidy.

Would it also be fair to say California has legitimate business concerns and rightly chooses to support those companies which choose to have their headquarters in its state?

“No one believes more firmly than Gavin Newsom that all EVs are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

their true advantage is safety from their software. which other EV has smart airbags that deploy differently depending on the occupants' position and where the car is hit? this is how you read about those crazy crashes with Tesla owners being safe afterward, or falling off cliffs

I’m down for that

So we should punish success and reward incompetence?

Blue MAGA about to tear you down for saying something positive about Tesla on Reddit, watch out! They've all been brainwashed into thinking Teslas are the worst cars on the planet

truth will prevail

By better you mean they go further with smaller batteries that go fast. Nothing else is better, like, literally nothing. I have a 3 and the quality is shit compared to other cars in this price range. The range is what drew me in.

ah yes, those poor small independent mom and pop auto-makers like Ford and GM...

Private companies can do whatever they please, including being stupid and petty. But the government is meant to be fair and just, not stupid and petty.

He says that because Tesla doesn't need the subsidies and can absorb. smaller manufacturer can't. So after years of getting a lifeline when he needed it, he now wants to close the door behind him.

This is response to Elon asking for the end of subsidies to get rid of the competition. There's no other reason - he thinks Tesla can absorb the shock, and smaller manufacturer won't. So Newsome is retaliating. I don't love it, especially since Tesla is building in CA too. But regulatory capture by Elon is a pretty low blow.

Why ever have subsidies at all in that case? Just saying that Tesla vehicles do not need subsidies to be competitive, so from that basis I’d understand excluding them.

What kind of thinkinh is this? That's not called a subsidy, that's just giving government money to certain companies to create an unfair market.

You do realize the electric tax credit today excludes a majority of electric vehicles sold, right? Not to mention it excludes gas vehicles.

The subsidy is stimulating products manufactured by American companies and stimulating a new industry to be competitive. That has nothing to do with excluding 1 company from subsidies for revenge.

And California’s subsidy is based on market share to elevate and encourage EVs from smaller players. You can spin this stuff a million ways, but at the end of the day, Tesla does not need subsidies to be competitive so I don’t think excluding them is uncalled for.

You don't want it. Ok, no cake for you 🤣

I think you have the cause and effect backwards. Those two states “win at capitalism” by being centralized recipients of industries that span the globe and have essentially zero marginal cost and high network effects (financial center and tech center, respectively), and it’s not easy to replicate that elsewhere due to the network effects. There can only be so many global financial centers. Dealing in atoms tends to be a lot harder to dominate so hard at, but Texas does pretty well via energy.

So the only EV maker in California is taken out of the program to protect small California EV makers that did not exist? Haters do hate.

I’ll give you 3 guesses as to which company has by far the most American-made cars. It’s Tesla. And no. 2 is…. Honda.

And over him not shuttering tesla during the pandemic while no other major manufacturer had to, especially the union shops.

[removed]

And it was Newsom that overrode the decision by the local health official to let him open the factory IIRC.

not just for Ford, or just GM everyone has, everyone doesn't, this is fair

Ford and GM could have absorbed it too, if they didn't adamantly refuse to invest at scale in it. It's their bed to lie in, not them to be saved like they're a small indie maker.

They are considering to put a market cap or number of cars sold which can eliminate Tesla from getting it. Doing that is how exactly the federal incentives for EVs worked in the prior round.

Tesla doesn't need credits if others also doesn't get them.

> this bill would increase demand for non-Tesla EV and therefore overall adoption of EVs Uh, not quite. Tesla us synonymous with EVs. There are enough concerns that there’s a lot of people won’t buy any EV but a Tesla. Reducing demand for Tesla then actually leads to a reduction in overall adoption of EVs.

What actions have consequences who'd thought.


yeah, but that wasn't RETROACTIVE. You get that if you propose a discrimination for things you did retractively, Tesla would sue the bejesus out of the California governament and win?

they did not remove EV tax credits altogether, they just excluded Tesla. "small manufacturers" lol yeah why is Ford and GM, those poor small shops, not excluded from the tax credit? redditors will justify lawfare for whatever reason. its clear as day that newsom is doing this to punish Elon alone

You literally just described why you bought the car which is the main thing people look for in cars...

Fuel would go up a dollar overnight, some say two bucks. That would have huge implications across goods all over America.

Yep. Newsom got a lot of shit over that.

Way to miss the forest for the trees. His argument was: delete all subsidies. Not: subsidise everyone except Tesl

A new credit doesn’t have to be retroactive. You just say that the new credit applies to automakers with sales less than x amount of cars in the state.

[removed]

[removed]

And killing the federal subsidy (supported by Musk) isn’t law fare???  That’s a joke.  California has the highest EV adoption of any state and the 5th largest economy in the world. It’s time they step up if the federal government under Elonia is failing us.

Lol Tesla is inferior. Call me when your windshield wipers finally work.

He’s Trumps puppetmaster. Are they going to remove any fossil fuel subsidies? No.

Killing the federal subsidy is more stupid and more petty. You get what you started.

SF is not “a hellhole of a city”. Do you live there? Have you visited?  It’s one of the best cities on earth.

Killing the federal subsidy is lawfare. California is protecting their interests of people in their state who want an EV future.  Sorry that Elonia is the main problem here.

Did anyone read the article? It wouldn't be just Tesla excluded, it would be based on market share, so other large manufacturers most likely as well.

[removed]

The IRA EV tax credit was designed to go away in the next year or two as the sourcing requirements would become too onerous for manufacturers to meet. Furthermore, it was effectively a 125% tariff on some of the best value battery cells available today. It was designed for the UAW, which wanted PHEVs and a modest amount of BEVs while giving Biden the appearance of doing something. In reality, most EV models lost their EV tax credits when it passed.

I replaced a Lexus LS hybrid and a Porsche 911 Turbo with a Model S Plaid. Its a better car than both of them combined. Neither Lexus or Porsche cold understand me, they both have a crappy dealer experience, and the constant oiling and maintenance ... not interested. That's for those people, and their miserable lives.

CA has started 2x industries. Movies and Computers. Dominating in both. They have the funds to try things, fail, try things, fail, and over and over. Spend $Billions with zero results. Everyone else? Lets do it on the cheap! And look where they are.

[removed]

Wrong! The sourcing requirements were designed to build a battery mining and manufacturing base in america. And it was working. Global automakers were choosing to build battery plants here with their JVs. Mining of raw materials was a little further behind. Yes the UAW was happy. They are happy when any plant is built in america. All workers should have the right to unionize if they want to. It’s been successful and unsuccessful in various new plants.

A little further behind? Lol. Check on the actual progress and just how much of that stuff will be available in the next few years. The answer is almost none. You are swallowing misinformation. The output won’t be there when the IRA sourcing requirements will bite in… it’s a poison pill built into the IRA on behalf of the UAW, which doesn’t want EVs anyways. It is designed to force PHEVs as much as possible, to constrain available resources.

You're in for a rude awakening over the next 4 years if you think that's not going to happen constantly.

Investors are not going to push out Elon. They voted for him to get his package even after he mass fired people.

You are the one swallowing misinformation about the UAW intentions. Where do you even get your sources of information on what their intentions are? The sourcing rules are primarily there to support domestic manufacturing and mining. Why would we want to subsidize china?

You clearly have done nearly zero research in this area.

Newsome is a grade A idiot

What exactly have I said that is inaccurate in any of my posts?

I’ve heard enough horror stories. Huge fentanyl and homeless problems there. Cost of living being super high. Are you delusional?

No, I have actually lived there and visit frequently. It is a beautiful city. The cost of living is high of course, it is a desirable place to live but also the salaries are very high in that area. Homeless has always been a problem with it peaking during covid and now coming back down. Drug use is tied to homeless and exists in limited parts of the city which are avoidable. Overall trend is better now and with a new mayor and city officials should trend better.

[deleted]

What vehicles are excluded?

Every electric/plug-in Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, certain models for VW, Mustang Mach-e, Volvo, PHEV vehicles from numerous manufacturers. It’s easier to cover what is included rather than excluded: https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/electric-cars-plug-in-hybrids-that-qualify-for-tax-credits-a7820795671/

Elon specifically said they don’t need the incentives

Man straight up no chill. CEOs will have a massive turnover rate if they miss metrics.

The level of childish behaviors on the radical left is astonishing. Offering subsidies based on market share (ev market share to be more specific to target Tesla). Either you want ev for the environment or you don’t. Not sure why you’d attack the company building in your state and helping your states coffers in favor of giving money to foreign brands and out of state sellers. The lack of economic common sense just to be petty and get your media attention

Thanks for telling me why I bought my car I guess? But acktualky, range, then luxurious technology. I got the first part right, but my 1-series BMW was a much nicer car and still very quick.

Dealership experience is not fun, completely agree. Going through it now and honestly, not terrible if you negotiate via email, definitely a modern improvement to the process.

is tesla still in cali i thought they moved to texas?

Nobody having credits puts Tesla at advantage. Sounds like a middle ground is going to be reached. Once other EVs catch up, id assume all credits will be taken away and Tesla will get what they wanted.

Good. Already got my Tesla. I was looking to my next EV being a Hyundai or Rivian.

Cheap political stunt may backfire horribly. He is openly using his power to target people.

Yes they are still in California – The Freemont plant making SX3Y vehicles, the Lathrop Megapack factory, Kato Rd (4680s) \[and another site\], the Palo Alto Engineering Headquarters, ...

Still bought a Tesla though lol

Tesla and SpaceC get taxpayers money, so Musk is also spending your money.

For sure, and I won’t buy another. 😘

Too many Californians love the guy, unfortunately.

Musk wants the federal credit gone so he should be happy that this credit won't be applied to Teslas.

I was thinking more along the lines of service. Non of them come to my house.

> difference between a CEO acting like a petulant child This petulant child is gunning to be the most powerful man in America with how he has Trumps ear.

Is it punishing when Elon said he wants to get rid of federal credits? Since Teslas wont qualify under the CA proposal, he's getting what he wants for Tesla.

The concept of an even playing field is alien to you?

Not in the slightest, but he got billions in federal subsidies and now wants no one to get them, seems to me he's the one who has an issue with a fair market.

Lots of companies get billions in various subsidies. But if you are referring to the LA Times infamous lies article, they counted US government contracts for services as subsidies. Those aren’t subsidies. GM used to have way more EV tax credits than Tesla until 2019. And then both got cut off. The IRA brought it back for them, but cut it for others. Again, you don’t seem to understand the concept of a fair playing field.

Cool, well that is your opinion. Apparently Elon had a different perception because of his own experience. Yet, you want to completely ignore that and just say he left because of political reasons. I'm telling you they are not. He's talked about it plenty. You can throw conspiracy theories around and just say it's political, but it isn't. He thinks the city and state are trash for supporting businesses. Which is obvious if you just look at how much large companies have moved out of the state. He's not the only one. So it is not fair to criticize him for having this opinion, it's hardly original.

> Why ever have subsidies at all in that case? Well, we definitely agree there.

Not only. Rivian is also based in Irvine.

Its owner doesn’t want subsidies. Why give them something they don’t want when it’s easy enough to not do that?

Like, incentivizing more efficient modes of transit, encouraging density, and reducing climate impact? Sounds good to me.

Sure that all sounds great. It most likely would send the country into a recession, but in the long term it should be better. Do you really think the US people would accept the ramifications of getting rid of fuel subsidies? People couldn’t even handle eggs at 4 bucks a dozen.

their factory isnt in California.

https://preview.redd.it/6czwdeujsa3e1.png?width=748&format=png&auto=webp&s=45ddab345ce0e96205736e7e9b456ba3e3be53d2

https://preview.redd.it/vp24xndosa3e1.png?width=750&format=png&auto=webp&s=c8ef6a2cf1070c7c8eaea6308c81d8f3bd01675a

iPhone factory isn't in California either. Nobody says Apple is a Chinese company.

I guess their comment should have been "only auto manufacturer making vehicles in California"

Mango 🥭 bad Elon bad

It was not stupid and petty to move out of California. It was a smart business decision because of the exorbitant taxes and ridiculous regulations California imposes on business. If California was more business friendly, I'm sure Musk would have happily kept Tesla. SpaceX and Twitter there.

If overregulation is truly the primary concern, I find it odd that Tesla moved to a state that doesn't even allow the company to sell directly to consumers.

That's completely disingenuous. Musk has never, ever said "let's stop the EV incentives for Tesla and keep them for every other brand". Musk wants the credit removed for everyone across the board. This move only targets Tesla.

At the end of the day, it was a publicly elected official happily dunking on a business that operates and employs people in the state she represents. Just because it came over a tweet doesn't make it any less ridiculous, just like MTG saying stupid shit on Twitter shouldn't get a pass.

I agree totally that elected officials should hold themselves to a higher standard and maintain appropriate public decorum, so to speak, when interacting with others. Though I also think the same should be said of one of the most prominent business leaders in the world.

>The irony is that in "green" California where Newsom supposedly cares so much about the environment he is supporting legislation that will directly reduce the rate of EV adoption in the state And so is Elon? This tax credit wouldn't hurt EV adoption, it would just hurt Tesla (and their California workers)

Huh? Do you know what regulatory capture means? Elon has consistently been against EV credits. He hasn’t captured any regulatory body to give himself and Tesla favors. He’s just saying that EV (and oil and gas) subsidies shouldn’t exist and companies should compete in an open market.

Teslas are the most american cars you can buy

I'm sure In this hypothetical lawsuit there won't be any emails specifically finding ways to exclude Tesla because musk.. Like that coastline board that denied launch requests and said outloud it was because of musks politics?

This is exactly why Musk shouldn’t get political…

Just set to a manual speed?

“Only auto manufacturers making vehicles in California what makes up a lot of the automakers jobs”

Fascism at work.

Vote blue no matter who!

the hate is real

News that keeps people clicking...because that's how the media makes money.

Go visit the Fremont Ca Tesla plant … it’s still there

Basically you just said Fisker and Rivian are the only ones who qualify for this credit then.

Ford, GM, Honda, Stelantis , Toyota don’t qualify then?

lol rivian got 6billon from the Biden administration to build their GA plant .. you know the one that makes trucks that Rivian loses 40k each vehicle sold

So Ford/GM/Honda/Toyota/Stelantis better not be eligible

Most MADE IN CALIFORNIA cars you can buy

> Do you really think the US people would accept the ramifications of getting rid of fuel subsidies? Of course not. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

Yes during the generals. This subthread is why primaries exist and why people need to vote in them.

We have very different expectations for CEOs vs. elected officials, then. CEOs have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to seek profit. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents and their desires. Gonzalez represented me when she was elected, and I \*never\* wanted to push Tesla out of the state, but she went and did it anyway and did so with basically zero tact, something I'd expect out of an autistic billionaire CEO, but not out of a state rep. "The autistic billionaire is being unreasonable" is not a good reason to sink to his lows.

Hate it or love it the dudes the head of the party and will be the nominee in 28. Are you really a Dem if you don’t support the nominee?

I'm not saying i agree with Newsom, I don't. Gov should not pick up winners. But Elon did made a move toward regulatory capture, it's odd to pretend he didn't. Tesla would clearly benefits from it, while consumers would be hurt. And "lawfare" is just how law work, friend: it can be changed. Companies like Rivian, Lucid in mind rather than Ford.

perhaps. i'm just underlying that Elon is attempting to close the door for upstarts. no talking about Ford. Riviab, Lucid. It's regulatory capture, that's just how it's called. Selling an EV will become harder unless you can drop margins, Rivian for example can't. Tesla would not have been able too, a few years back. btw i don't agree with Newsome, I don't think gov should pick winners.

[deleted]

>will be the nominee in 28 Maybe, maybe not. That's why primaries exist. >Are you really a Dem if you don’t support the nominee? I'll vote for who I think is the best candidate to be nominated inn the primaries, and will vote for the Den nominee, whomever it ends up being, in the general election.

The only EV mfgrs based in California are Rivian (who lose 40k on every vehicle sold) and Fisker who is almost in bankruptcy every day

Until they both declare bankruptcy next year Rivian and Fisker … oops nvm Fisker already field for BQ

Rivians aren’t exactly cheap.. people who can afford those don’t need California tax dollars.

LOL Productivity probably dropped at least 50% when workers "worked" from home.

[deleted]

lol that was literally what you were talking about, California EV companies who ‘should’ get the tax credit

[deleted]

There were actual metrics that said otherwise. Of course once the call was made to RTO, that site was taken down.

[deleted]

You were responding to a comment “Isn’t Tesla the only car manufacturer in California?” The ONLY EV manufacturers based in Cali are Fisker(bankrupt) and Rivian…

How did he do that? With his open patent offer?

[deleted]

"metrics". OK. I'm sure, in SOME industries, work from home CAN be quantified. Others ? Not so much.

The federal government needs to significantly reduce or remove as many subsidies as possible.

As long as they support and prop up oil and gas with subsidies than targeting the EV credit is stupid and petty,

Both should go away

You can easily quantify the cost of leasing office space and traffic (especially in Sacramento) when state workers WFH vs going into the office. Productivity at large was not negatively impacted by WFH. Just because you are in the office does not mean you are working 100% of the time anyway.

Sure you can quantify the cost of rent and other things. But I wasn't talking about that. What I'm suggesting is, there often aren't many ways to quantify productivity, especially not wfh. And while I agree that there's no 100% productivity while workers are IN the office, I'd be amazed if you got anywhere near half that with wfh. I could be wrong of course but wfh is not always/often/ever quantifiable for many computer -based jobs.

He’s trolling and it obviously wouldn’t hold up in court

Fair enough. Happy Thanksgiving!

Right back at ya !!!

Literally 90% of farms would fail

I hope all the speculation about ending the IRA is just that, speculation. The battery requirements go up every year. So, technically, nobody needs to do anything and most cars won't even qualify for the credit. It's been a big incentive for the industry. I hope it remains in place

when you pick a side, you get pros and cons that comes with that. that's why company should never pick side with politics and stay neutral as possible.

With his push to get rid of the federal tax credit for EVs since Tesla already maximized their use of it and other car companies are utilizing it to get their EV programs up and running.

Seriously, very anti-productive, I thought speeding the adoption of EV’s is a big part of California’s climate goals.

Its kinda dunny to see Elon Musk c riders who say this is horrible....but Elon musk helped the guy who wanted to remove the credits in the first place. Not a single word about that but WHOA anti Elon Musk post thats a top priority

My stepmom works in fraud investigation for Toronto-Dominion, one of Canada's Big 5 banks and a Fortune 500 company. Basically, she's the person you deal with when your Nana gives her credit card info to a Nigerian prince. They had her office start working from home "temporarily" in 2020. They gave them laptops to do so. Eventually they gave people on her team an allowance to buy a desk and office chair. Then they bought monitors for all of them to use as a second screen with the laptop. Then they told everyone on her team that they would continue working from home permanently. When COVID restrictions ended for good, they had to start coming into the office for a face to face team meeting every few weeks. That's still the status quo. TD Bank did all of this because whatever internal metrics they used indicated that her department didn't just maintain a similar level of productivity working from home, productivity actually improved working from home. Obviously I'm not going to generalise that to every position at every company. It's just an interesting anecdote.

Interesting coincidence. I actually worked for Toronto-Dominion Bank a looooong time ago, on Broad(?) St in lower Manhattan/Wall St area. It's a Tesla thread so I'm not going to go on about working from home. I can see many pros and cons to it for both the employer and employee and I'm certainly no expert on metrics/analytic/whatever. I AM however, an expert on goofing off, both for myself and as an observer. LMAO Happy Holidaze !!!

Spoken by someone that has never owned an ev, let alone a Tesla. I agree the windshield wiper controls are frustrating. But FSD, which I use daily, the superchargers (which are not all available to all makers), and the superior software, make Tesla the obviousl choice.