Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

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.

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".

It’s less that they are made in other states. It’s that they used all the resources here then left after making it big. Pull up the ladder after succeeding.

He made the cybertruck instead of the model 2. I just don’t understand that decision.

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