Tesla having less credits to sell will not hurt ice automakers who can still buy credits elsewhere. This change in CARB rules is focused on EV makers, no one else. It attempts to make an EV into a fuel vehicle, so that ice, hevs, pih, h2fcvs can compete with Tesla's foot hold gains. Musk is no slouch, he saw this coming a long time ago, and had a R&D working on pack swap tech for Tesla EVs.
Clearly this is an automaker/oil company manipulation of CARB's rules that smells quite political amongst the board. What good does it serve California Air Quality to have a faster refueling EV? So that the EV can use more electricity resources, in faster & greater amounts? Recharging a Tesla on a long trip is plenty quick on their proprietary L3 EVSE. The CHAdeMO to Tesla adapter is just as fast, ref http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/28340-CHAdeMO-Adapter There are political forces on the CARB board that like h2fcvs, this has been known for a while. So, this latest change to CARB rules is not the beginning, nor the end to more and more strange non-productive decisions being made. I foresee them to be like this one, more to the benefit of the Tesla's competitors, and not to the benefit of Tesla customers. Tesla would not have been able to establish a coast to coast Supercharger L3 EVSE network if it had not been for the cash flow coming into Tesla. 1 credit = $5k to Tesla, ref http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/27589-California-buyers-Is-Tesla-splitting-the-value-of-energy-credits-with-you?highlight=carb+credits I liken the reduction of credits to Tesla similar to the WWII tactics to reduce the energy flow to Germany (bomb synthetic fuel plants) and Japan (sink oil tankers). Reducing Tesla's ability to grow as fast and you help ice automakers and oil companies that want to sell h2 to quick refuel fcvs. No, I disagree, there is no benefit to this CARB rule change, except to ice automakers and the oil industry. In my original post http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Who-is-manipulating-CARB-against-Tesla-td4668875.html it states: >The change in rule will be implemented after a public review period.< Those that are against this rule change should make their public voices heard, see Contact CARB http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/contact.htm http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/comments.htm How to Send ... Public Comments {brucedp.150m.com} - On Thu, Apr 10, 2014, at 01:07 PM, Peri Hartman wrote: > It does seem ridiculous. But it has a positive side. > > The negative side it that it hurts Tesla's cash flow. I hope they've > anticipated this in their financial modeling. > > The positive side is that it means the ICE manufacturers will not be able > to > simply buy credits; they'll have to produce more EVs. - -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/help/overview_quotes.html _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
