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.<p>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.
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.<p>If this has the same goal (encourage new entrants, diverse sources) then what do you suggest they do?
The entire point of the original credit, before it was changed in the IRA, was to incentivize new entrants into the electric car space. Just because Tesla, Ford, Toyota, and GM were able to play politics and get a huge incentive in perpetuity instead, doesn't mean California has to make the same mistake with their own implementation.<p><a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2022-and-before" rel="nofollow">https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...</a>
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 the state seems insane.
Promoting competition is always good for the end consumer, and certainly Tesla doesn't need any help in that regard.<p>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.)
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”.<p>Arguably, the only reason Musk has decided to wade into politics is <i>exactly this kind of shit</i> - 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.<p>Things which spring to mind:<p>- the FCC excluding starlink from rural broadband subsidies<p>- never ending DFEH investigations in California<p>- disproportionate NHTSA scrutiny compared to other automakers and self-drive systems<p>- federal EV tax credit exclusion<p>- FAA foot-dragging over starship<p>I’m not saying that these <i>are</i> 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.
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.<p>It's time Democrats took the lesson.
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, to protect individuals and organizations.