The Greenies would prefer that you do not ask such questions.
Posted on 09/23/2021 10:56:50 AM PDT by karpov
WASHINGTON, Sept 22 (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) is pressing President Joe Biden's administration and a U.S. appeals court to move quickly to hike civil penalties for automakers failing to meet fuel economy requirements.
Electric vehicle maker Tesla sells credits to other automakers to help them meet government vehicle emissions requirements, and says those credits are less valuable due to changes in rules made by former President Donald Trump's administration. Tesla met virtually on Aug. 30 with officials from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), according to a document filed by the agency last week.
On Aug. 18, the NHTSA issued a notice saying it could impose higher penalties for prior model years for automakers failing to meet fuel efficiency requirements but will first consider public comments.
Automakers have warned that hiking penalties could cost them at least $1 billion annually, both for failing to meet the rules and higher prices for credits used to meet the rules.
The Trump administration in its final days in January delayed a 2016 regulation that more than doubled penalties for automakers failing to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements.
The government memo said Tesla suggested NHTSA withdraw Trump's action immediately, saying it "produces continuing uncertainty in investments and transactions across the industry, and any delays will continue to have deleterious effects on the credit market until the issue is resolved." It added Tesla believes "any delays will continue to have deleterious effects on the credit market."
Tesla on Aug. 27 separately again asked the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to quickly reinstate higher penalties. The court rejected Tesla's request in April for immediate action pending NHTSA's review.
"The uncertainty perpetuated by NHTSA’s sluggish rulemaking pace is thus compounded by the likelihood of yet another round of litigation," Tesla wrote
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
How much coal do they have to burn to fully charge a Tesla?
Asking for a friend.
Looks like there may be a hint of desperation going on in the backrooms of Tesla.
If they don’t call it a subsidy when everyone else is paying extra it’s still a subsidy.
Get government’s hands off the scales.
Socialism: “Do what we tell you or we will throw you in jail”
Communism: “Do what we tell you or we will shoot you”
Elon Musk gave Obama campaign contributions.
In return, Musk received governement (taxpayer) contracts.
Quid pro Quid.
Musk also wants a carbon tax.
I like SpaceX, but electric cars are a joke.
GM recently told owners of the Bolt to park their electric cars outside because the cars catch fire.
Ya, I believe everything reuters reports. I’ll have to go over to cnn and msnbc to verify.
Nothing like a big fat teat to grab onto with both hands and lips.
Porcine-ola Big Gubamint style. You don’t petition your representatives, you just buy them off. 10% for the Big Guy, the deed will be done.
To all those who take lithium, stock up cuz EV batteries will consume most of it by mid-century.
Nothing like using the government as a weapon against your competitors
The Greenies would prefer that you do not ask such questions.
I certainly don’t want subsidies either way, let people decide what is important to them. But there are many studies showing the lifecycle of carbon emissions is lower for the BEV even if the energy source is not especially green. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k There are lots of pluses and minus for both, but it is not even very close if considering carbon release. This calculation does depend on actually driving 10-12K miles per year, the lower the miles the longer it may take for the ICE to exceed the BEV. We have good data, no need to spout incorrect info to make a point and be proven false. Personally I am not quite convinced of the longevity of the BEV over 12-15 years as I expect from a quality ICE vendor. I certainly like the idea of rarely visiting a refueling station and having a much simpler maint. schedule with a BEV. I kind of leaning toward something like a RAV4 prime, where +90% of my trips would be electric only, but having an ICE engine where long trips are necessary. Though then you have the complexity and maint on two power trains.
This is classic corporatism, pressing government to change or make rules that benefit your company and/or harm your competitors.
Note to Nancy Pelosi: this isn’t “capitalism”.
^^ THIS !!! ^^
If other automakers aren't meeting the arbitrary requirements set forth by "government", and Tesla has excess credits which he can sell, he can charge up the amount of the penalties the other automakers would otherwise incur. Good for Tesla's bottom line.
If other automakers instead have to spend more across the board to meet the arbitrary requirements, then his product is more cost-competitive in the market. Good for Tesla's bottom line.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk laughs all the way to the bank as he uses the government dictates against the government itself, and his competitors. Evil genius!
Let’s not forget it’s also the gas powered vehicle owners paying the taxes at the pump for roadway infrastructure. How about stopping the fed subsidies on electric? Then initiate a road tax for electric vehicles since they’re using roads they’re not paying for?
> Let’s not forget it’s also the gas powered vehicle owners paying the taxes at the pump for roadway infrastructure. <
The government will always get its cut. Lawmakers in my neck of the woods are looking at two new car-taxing schemes:
1. Require all car odometers to be checked annually for miles driven. Then you’ll get a bill in the mail based on that mileage.
2. Put cameras on bridges. Cross a bridge, and you’ll get a bill in the mail.
Fascism.
exactly...people laud Musk as some kind of free-market supporting, red-pilled billionaire who told the California liberals to suck it.
While I’m glad he did that, Tesla’s crony corporatist maneuvering suggests that Musk will just sit back and milk Fedgov when he pleases.
Too much hypocrisy for me to be a fan...
For me, the biggest challenge is simply that I refuse to buy into the “CO2 emissions are a bad thing” nonsense. Venus and Mars have almost the exact same CO2 content percentage of their atmosphere. Why is one absurdly hot and the other not? It’s not about the closeness of the sun, really. It is about atmospheric density.
CO2 is a NECESSARY part of our ecosystem. And the more the merrier - for the most part.
And yet the problem with your entire premise is that carbon is a bad thing... Maybe plants want a higher carbon dioxide concentration, so wouldn’t that make your argument opposite?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.