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

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#81

Post by yyuugg »

ziiiio wrote: post #80
yyuugg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if you believe this, it's still nonsense.

Let's say you believe that trans women are men. And you believe you need to protect cis women. The number of trans women is so vanishingly small, that you've spent a huge amount of energy to prevent the 0.5% case. Legislating always has an opportunity cost, putting forward a bill means not putting forward other bills.

Women suffer domestic violence and sexual violence. 33% of women in the US report experiencing domestic violence. Protect women from that!

Because there are so many ways women suffer in this country, it's very difficult to take on good faith that anyone is protecting them by legislating against trans women. You could choose to solve any problem that affects women orders of magnitude more, but those problems see orders of magnitude fewer bills, if any at all.

No, the data shows this isn't about protecting women, it's about hurting trans people.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#82

Post by ziiiio »

yyuugg wrote: post #81
ziiiio wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if you believe this, it's still nonsense. Let's say you believe that trans women are men. And you believe you need to protect cis women. The number of trans women is so vanishingly small, that you've spent a huge amount of energy to prevent the 0.5% case. Legislating always has an opportunity cost, putting forward a bill means not putting forward other bills. Women suffer domestic violence and sexual violence. 3…

By this same logic, do you believe that no laws should be or should have been introduced that enable these males to access women's spaces and services? As there are only a vanishingly small number of such males, so spending a huge amount of legislative energy to give them what they want is a waste of time which could have been used for more worthy laws, like ones to prevent domestic violence.

Your argument works both ways.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#83

Post by [deleted] »

schobi wrote: post #64
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…

Most people miss, that you do not need a full and fast charging infrastructure at home. I rarely need to fill the car from empty. I rarely need to jump on the next multi hour trip right away. If you "stay with family" I assume this is a few hours or overnight. Even slow charging from a regular outlet gives enough over night or a 6 hour stay. In Europe a regular outlet can give 3-4kW, so 6 hours is enough to go anothe…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#84

Post by kzs0 »

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #73
matthewdgreen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aga…

Why? It fosters competition and considering Tesla was heavily subsidized during its early years, it makes sense its competitors should have similar shots

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#85

Post by aeternum »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #43
ggm wrote: 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…

Model 3 is priced under the average US car price. It is a mass market car.

Yes Chinese EVs have superior economics. It's quite difficult to have both high labor rates "living wages!" and cheap cars. Tesla is still the most competitive in this regard vs. other US automakers.

Tesla just announced their mass market robocar. Do you believe they won't actually produce it?

Makes sense to oppose subsidies, Tesla's stance has always been if you remove the subsidies for gas cars then EVs will already be highly competitive just on merit alone.

Tesla has already fully opened the supercharging network including the plug interface. What other company would do that? Imagine if Comcast were forced to share all their cable lines.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#86

Post by kbelder »

afavour wrote: post #74
kbelder wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Those professing unpopular beliefs and belonging to unpopular religions were the very first 'protected class' listed in the constitution.

Not really a 'class' though, since the protection applies to everybody.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#87

Post by afavour »

kbelder wrote: post #86
afavour wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those professing unpopular beliefs and belonging to unpopular religions were the very first 'protected class' listed in the constitution. Not really a 'class' though, since the protection applies to everybody.

So racism is just an “unpopular belief” now? Got it, got it. Still a no from me though, thanks.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#88

Post by ivewonyoung »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #56
yongjik wrote: 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 ident…

All that and you didn't mention how the political bent started. Musk voted for Biden in Nov 2020 after all.

Biden had an official govt EV summit in 2021 in his first year where Tesla wasn't invited, and he praised GM's CEO as the pioneer and leader of EVs when it produced 25 EVs that quarter and Tesla produced ~200K. A ridiculous thing to do stand there and just lie.

Why? Because the auto union that heavily donates to Dem campaigns didn't want Tesla there. It shows Dems don't care about the environment as much as you think if they just decide to throw a company that was doing a lot for the environment under the bus for purely political reasons, including almost excluding Tesla from the federal EV credits to help the unions. Musk got the message.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#89

Post by jjav »

adastra22 wrote: post #37
SergeyKa wrote: post #24

CA didn't need EV credits to help electrification, could just waive 10% sales tax on EVs...

And nationalize PG&E to get rid of exploitative power rates.

> And nationalize PG&E to get rid of exploitative power rates.

This needs to be highlighted more. Electricity is so expensive with PG&E that it is going to hold back anything that needs electricity. A few more rounds of price hikes and we'll be at $1/kWh!

If the PG&E price increases continue in their current pattern, in less than ten years my PG&E monthly bill will be larger than my mortgage! This is not sustainable.

Re: Tesla excluded from EV buyer credits in California proposal

#90

Post by AtlasBarfed »

Yizahi wrote: post #70
schobi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people miss, that you do not need a full and fast charging infrastructure at home. I rarely need to fill the car from empty. I rarely need to jump on the next multi hour trip right away. If you "stay with family" I assume this is a few hours or overnight. Even slow charging from a regular outlet gives enough over night or a 6 hour stay. In Europe a regular outlet can give 3-4kW, so 6 hours is enough to go anothe…

Most people miss that most people in the world live in the apartments and not in the private houses. I wouldn't be able to charge EV at home even via 1A usb cable, simply because there is no wiring whatsoever on the parking.

This is crazy to me.

So you have an increased concentration of people and parking, and so there is NO WAY to more efficiently make charging infra for that?

The only way we can do home charging is in geographically semi-sparse suburbia?

Come on. Apartment buildings should be STRONGLY incented by local governments to provide charging infrastructure, even if it is simply regular power outlets not even L2, to apartments.

Urban cities have air quality problems. PHEVs/EVs solve a huge part of air quality. SUBSIDIZE the charging infrastructure. I'm sure the power company will LOVE to take some grants.

Post reply on HN