Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#71

Post by m463 »

rcleveng wrote: post #63
asteroidburger wrote: post #41

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 wish AZ was as good at this as CA. I rented a tesla from avis in AZ and it was a train wreck. At rental they were pretty threatening about they didn't have a place to charge so it'd be huge fees if I didn't bring it back charged, and they also didn't include the adapter that they said to charge at non-tesla charging stations. It's was both super stressful and a total pain to find a supercharge for this nearby. It's…

I had the same sorts of issues the first time I rented a model 3 from hertz (when they had them).

For example, I didn't know how to lock the car. When I hit lock on the center console, then got out, it would unlock it. Finally had to google to figure out the two ways to lock the car. one was opening the door first, hitting lock, and then closing the door - it stayed locked. The other was to put the card key on the middle pillar.

Same issues charging. Called in and it turned out the j1772 adapter was in the trunk with the charging kit

after that it went smoother.

All the hotels I stayed at had charging.

Using tesla superchargers is great - always working, always plenty of stalls.

And the tesla would drive itself on the freeway - other cars wouldn't. Best.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#72

Post by m463 »

echelon wrote: post #51
asteroidburger wrote: post #41

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…

I used to think the same thing. When EVs first became popular, finding public fast charging was a joke. I remember there was evgo, blink and chargepoint. Chargepoint was basically l2 only. blink was l2 and l3, but they were ALWAYS out of order. And evgo was reliable L3 + L2, but they were expensive and would have max 2 stalls of L3.

Then I tried tesla, who really planned for the long term. Many charging locations. Many charging stalls. All of them extremely high power. Their cars had much better range than the competition (at the time). All of that made charging a tesla predictable and dependable. (In stark contrast to the rest)

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#73

Post by omarforgotpwd »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #40
omarforgotpwd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#74

Post by afavour »

kbelder wrote: post #46
afavour wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

So racists are a protected class in this world? I’m alright without, thanks.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#75

Post by igetspam »

ANewFormation wrote: post #48
flapadoodle wrote: post #14

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…

In the examples you're listing, those actions were overwhelmingly supported by Floridians and Texans respectively, and worked to increase the overall support of those politicians. Is this the sort of action that Californians would broadly support? If so, then more power to them. If not then this is the political class playing petty games to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing.

So you’re asking if the majority of Californians would gladly see Musk be excluded from these benefits? Seems like the recent election results would be a pretty good indicator of how that would go. And assuming that they would, then you’re okay with it, right?

Also, don’t confuse gerrymandered elections with overwhelming support. Texas turned disenfranchising people into an art form. What the voting lines say and what the people want are rarely aligned. The Texas government knows this. The people know this (ex Texan here). Its cleverly and not secretly crafted to make it nearly impossible for the state to go blue.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#76

Post by igetspam »

mquander wrote: post #7
Dylan16807 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 g…

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?

Are you a billionaire?

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#77

Post by ivewonyoung »

adastra22 wrote: post #36
SirWart wrote: post #33

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 th…

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.

> 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.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#78

Post by Larrikin »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #4
Larrikin wrote: 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…

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?

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#79

Post by ANewFormation »

igetspam wrote: post #75
ANewFormation wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the examples you're listing, those actions were overwhelmingly supported by Floridians and Texans respectively, and worked to increase the overall support of those politicians. Is this the sort of action that Californians would broadly support? If so, then more power to them. If not then this is the political class playing petty games to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing.

So you’re asking if the majority of Californians would gladly see Musk be excluded from these benefits? Seems like the recent election results would be a pretty good indicator of how that would go. And assuming that they would, then you’re okay with it, right? Also, don’t confuse gerrymandered elections with overwhelming support. Texas turned disenfranchising people into an art form. What the voting lines say and wha…

Musk makes $0 directly from these benefits. He only gains from those who buy a Tesla with the perk, but wouldn't otherwise, and that number is going to be quite small. The primary beneficiaries, by far, are normal citizens of California. And I really doubt they're thrilled about paying more because of petty political games.

Ted Cruz is a Senator - gerrymandering plays 0 role in his victory, which was far more dominant in 2024 than 2018.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#80

Post by ziiiio »

yyuugg wrote: post #58
adastra22 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fifty percent of Americans are female, and most of these bills you refer to are intended to help them by preventing male incursion.

Yes, this might make it more difficult for that minority of males who demand to use female spaces. That's the whole point.

Post reply on HN