Live data from Hacker News

Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

fortune.com

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#51

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…

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.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#52
post #12

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?

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 i…

Outsider perspective:

- EVERYONE wants to keep chinese EVs out of their marketplaces, EU included. It's gov on gov subsidies fighting and you either accept your own markets being crushed by loss-leaders or you don't. The fact that people see this as a red v blue stuff is mind boggling.

- you play politics with your companies, you pay the price. This current admin had an EV summit and didn't invite the top dog? I mean, politics is supposed to be that thing where you swallow your pride and meet with people you don't like. They couldn't do that. What do they expect now?

In general the retconning and my team vs their team you do in the US right now is really on a different level. You have traditional eco camps shitting on ev companies, traditional anti-reds military hawks wanting to stay out of literally rendering the traditional enemies useless, you have that middle east stuff where camps are literally 180 of what they were 10 years ago. This world is going whack, and I can't believe people on the Internet don't see it, and still try to find ways to argue for "their team".

Luckily the people I meet IRL aren't as hyper radicalised as the online folks are. In both red and blue states, the people are ok. Reading stuff online you'd think there's a literal war going on. Hopefully this will pass in a few years...

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#53
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.)

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#54

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, t…

[flagged]

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#55
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-discr...

> 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 ra…

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.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#56
post #20

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.

Nah, you just have to double-down on what Musk himself has started: Complete the poisoning of the Tesla brand.

Musk committed CEO malpractice. Utter malpractice. One of the cornerstone pillars of Tesla is environmentalist progressivism. There is no way any democrat or environmentalist or liberal can look at this election and stomach buying a Tesla in the future.

At LEAST 50% of Tesla's existing customer base is identified democrats. Every time Trump speaks in the next four years, identified democrats will viscerally feel that, and remember Musk, and blame Tesla.

A car company's MOST IMPORTANT customers are recurring customers. Brand loyalty is paramount to a car brand. Tesla does not have enough right wing converts, especially since they are generally in rural areas underserved or not served by charging infrastructure, to make up for the customer loss.

IMO Musk's stewardship of Tesla has shown huge amounts of failed opportunities:

Primarily, is that after 17 years, Tesla basically sells two cars: a crossover and a sedan, with two sizes. Medium sized and slightly bigger. No delivery trucks, minivans, real pickups, city cars, kei cars, station wagons, sports cars, convertibles, large SUVs, large pickups/commercial vehicle platforms. No heavy machinery, heavy equipment.

To that end, Tesla likely had ample opportunity to push its battery tech, drivetrains, and expertise into far more markets and segments by simply acquiring or partnering with a struggling ICE company (pick any one of a half-dozen that Geely or China have acquired in the last decade).

Tesla could have pushed for advanced/capable PHEVs of high quality (think the Chevy Volt but better) with that cross-partnership and achieved electrification and profits and education of mass market buyers into EV advantages much more quickly and at scale

Tesla could have used the acquired company for downmarket branding and cheaper EVs. It could allow the use of conventional OEM design to more rapidly bring vehicle types to market.

Tesla has not scaled production sufficiently in the last couple years in my opinion. A lot of that is lack of diversification of models, an inability/resistance to use OEM suppliers, and no longer being interested in "gigafactory" construction with the same aggression.

Home solar and home storage is basically a joke and forgotten in Tesla, again, a waste of their once-great brand.

Repairability, quality, customer service, parts availability is pathetically bad, again because of resistance to OEM usage.

Finally, Tesla is likely the least favorite company of the three major ones he heads. He is AWOL from leadership essentially, and it shows.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#57
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But...you're not, this is entirely normal politics now. DeSantis has been waging open war on Disney for years, Cruz has gone after everyone from Blackrock to Target for political reasons. The incoming administration has made no secret it intends to use any and every lever to hurt any opposition. At some point you need to stop pretending to be surprised by entirely quotidien events and accept this is in fact precisely…

Yes, those examples you gave are also disgusting, but do not make politically motivated actions against Elon Musk right.

You've moved the goal post. You said "we're better than this". You got several instances where, clearly, we are not.

Take the L here. Acknowledge we're not better than this and arguably never have been. Next time consider, "we should aspire to be better than this".

And to be clear, I didn't vote Harris or Trump, both parties do this gross stuff.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What does that have to do with anything?

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.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#59
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.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#60
post #51

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…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN