> On Aug 18, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Chris Tromley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Mark Abramowitz <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >> On Aug 18, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Chris Tromley via EV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > In the article I read from the LA Times, there isn't any indication >> > whatsoever that Tesla is seeking anything. This is all being offered by >> > the state to remain competitive with other states. Tesla has options. >> > They don't need California. California needs Tesla. >> >> I've not read the article, but I can tell you that this is being talked >> about. > > see > http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-tesla-incentives-20140812-story.html > > <snip> > >> Slow down a multi-year project by how much? > > Enough to delay the development and/or launch of the Model 3, which will > depend on gigafactory output.
Tough to believe that Musk, of all people, has such a tight schedule. With all the unknowns, it would be irresponsible for him to engage in such a poor planning effort. He's one of the last people that I would think would be unprepared. > > <snip> > >> Exactly. As someone who has lauded what Tesla has done, my trust is any >> company that "needs" to be exempt from environmental disclosure and >> protection laws is being tested. > > Again, Musk would have to be truly stupid to build and/or operate the > gigafactory without exemplary environmental protections in place. He has > demonstrated repeatedly that he is not stupid. That's what I would have thought. But this still creates a black mark, to say nothing about the policy implications of carving out special exemptions for people. > > California has fast-tracked projects through the environmental review process > before. Once that I remember - for the stadium - pretty sleazy, in my view. > What I have suggested elsewhere is that they amend the legislation to allow a > real-time monitor-and-advise approach, perhaps with regulators embedded in > the project team. First and foremost, CEQA is a disclosure requirement, providing disclosure to both the public and decision makers. I don't know what a "real-time monitor-and-advise approach" is, but it sounds like it presumes a lot. Regulators embedded in project team smacks of back room deals, coziness, rubber stamp approvals, and from a practical standpoint, almost besides the point. You don't have much experience with CEQA, do you? Or the regulatory side? Sounds like you want predetermined outcome and rubber stamp. > That or something similar could produce results EVEN BETTER than what the > current legislation would yield, and would therefore help silence everyone > with an agenda who would prefer to serve their own interests. All while > keeping the project on schedule. The big agenda out there is weakening CEQA, and this only further makes it difficult to protect. > > Sounds pretty innovative to me. Is California up to it? I think they are. > Politically I'm not so sure. Innovation, yes. But I'm not so sure this innovates. In fact, there are better ways to cut time in the process without messing with CEQA, starting with preferential "go to the front of the line" permitting. I've been pushing that for years. It has a much better impact on time to build than weakening CEQA. > > Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140818/879f593f/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ 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)
