Remix clone Hacker News

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?

▲

omarforgotpwd 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 That was repealed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration, and replaced with a new system where you qualify for the credit based on the sourcing of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.

▲

matthewdgreen 13 hours ago | parent [-]

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 resources to Tesla rather than companies that haven’t yet reached scalable production.

Of course the very best thing here would be for the Federal government to maintain the subsidies of the IRA, and then California wouldn’t have to step in with its more limited capabilities in the first place. If that’s important to Tesla, I’m sure they have someone who can talk to the incoming administration about it.

▲

omarforgotpwd 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	kzs0 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why? It fosters competition and considering Tesla was heavily subsidized during its early years, it makes sense its competitors should have similar shots

▲

AtlasBarfed 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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".

▲

NitpickLawyer 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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...

	▲	AtlasBarfed 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Generally what the article discusses, and yeah my comment meandered a fair amount, is that should Tesla be specifically excluded from subsidies? The EU has plausible progress from its mainline car makers in EV scaling. It can shield an entire industry with tariffs or targeted subsidies. The US is basically Tesla, some early stage startups, and the US companies only doing it because their activist shareholders would fire the US leadership of GM or Ford if they weren't being active. The US is one company, and per my argument that company is no longer helping the overall health of the EV market. Honestly I think Chinese EVs would be a welcome kickstart to adoption in the US. At a minimum it would probably drive a vast amount of domestic manufacturing for onshore/nearshore chinese car factories, a sort of reverse-transfer of manufacturing technology/practice back to the US from China (from companies that are probably desperate to diversify their global footprint with the dire demographic and authoritarian future of China that is apparent). If Musk wants to temper tantrum over that little meeting, then he is again not being a CEO. Again, HALF OF THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE DEMOCRATS. So not the middle third/half of Americans, not the quarter-right. You cannot alienate half of your customer base, and Tesla is going to find out what happens if a CEO plays politics. Tesla is a company of passionate progressive thinking people that were willing to jump on board a radically new car company. Politics will be important to these buyers, because it is part and parcel of the brand identity. This is marketing 101. Brands == Emotions == Identity == Investment. Musk has shattered the emotional and identity link of a huge amount of current and probably most future customers. For many, it won't just be weakened with some dose of comparmentalization/cognitive dissonance. For a large number, and probably some of the most passionate defenders (like me), it is poisoned. So the CEO should have swallowed politics and played to his customer base. That is what CEOs and business is about. But that's not what happened. Almost all Tesla owners I know were proponents and advocates for a decade. Since the election, they are now, at best, rationalizers. Many others regret the purchase and now will just ride out the current car/lease and "Never Tesla" again.

▲

aeternum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

lowbloodsugar 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

maeil 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> - 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.

Unless Trump is about to slap tariffs on all EV imports, not just China, it looks like a matter of time before the likes of Hyundai, Honda and Nissan are coming to eat their lunch (and maybe some day the Europeans or Toyota as well, though I'm sceptical).

Especially as Tesla is stuck with fundamentally flawed self-driving features while the others are working to get e.g. Waymo in their cars.