2013 Model S 60 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Dealers' suit against Tesla dismissed in MA court

Tesla has been facing resistance from dealer associations with its factory-owned dealerships since the start-up automaker first started selling cars, but it won another big case in Massachusetts when a judge dismissed a lawsuit brought on by the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association (MSADA). According to Automotive News, the case was dismissed after the judge said the association "lacked standing to sue" despite the fact that MSADA executive vice president quotes the state law as saying, "A factory cannot own a store."
The latest lawsuit follows a similar suit from back in October where the MSADA attempted to prevent Tesla from opening a store in a suburban Boston mall; the electric car maker received approval to open another store in Natick, MA, which brought on this second lawsuit. It's unlikely this is the last we've heard about this issue in Massachusetts and in other states, but Tesla seems to be coming out victorious in each case so far. While laws pertaining to dealerships vary state to state, factory-owned dealers are usually noncompliant with state law - a lesson Chrysler learned back in 2011.

Ohio senator with deep dealer ties proposes anti-Tesla bill

The fight against customer-direct car sales by Tesla Motors continues around the US, and the California-based company can now count dealership groups in Georgia and Ohio among its adversaries. In Ohio, Tesla has opened company-owned stores in Cincinnati and Columbus and is now fighting a state dealership association that's pushing for legislation that explicitly outlaws direct dealer-to-public sales after a lawsuit against Tesla was dismissed last week, Automotive News says. The proposed law (Senate Bill 260) would prevent any entity from selling vehicles if it "is a manufacturer, or a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliated entity of a manufacturer, applying for a license to sell or lease new or used motor vehicles at retail." Under Ohio's current laws, Tesla says its stores are perfectly legal, but clearly that would would drastically change if SB260 becomes law without some sort of provision to 'grandfather' dealers opened before the legislation passes. Ohio's dealers say Tesla threatens their network since it sets a precedent for other automakers to use the same practice. The politician behind the bill received at least $42,825 from dealership owners, employees and PACs. The politician behind the anti-Tesla bill in Ohio is Senator Tom Patton (R-Strongsville), who "received at least $42,825 from state and national auto dealership owners, employees, and political action committees (PACs) between 2002 and 2013," according to Media Trackers. His Facebook page is filling up with negative comments about his "crony capitalism" actions. Meanwhile, a Georgia exemption from that state's prohibition of automaker-to-public sales states that a company can directly sell as many as 150 zero-emissions vehicles a year, the Atlanta Business Chronicle says. Tesla sold about 500 of its Model S sedans there last year, with the rest of the cars being registered in California. The automaker is looking to expand that exemption tenfold to 1,500 vehicles. Georgia and Ohio join states such as Massachusetts, New York and Texas that have done battle with Tesla and its business model, with Texas thus far being the most formidable opponent. CEO Elon Musk said last year that he may go to the federal government to get such laws changed on a national level. That's not surprising since Tesla's preparing to start selling its Model X crossover and could unveil its cheaper EV (possibly called Model E) at the Detroit Auto Show next year.

California could put $60,000 MRSP limit on EV rebates

In California, electric vehicles have been selling so well that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is discussing ways to reduce the amount spent on the state's Clean Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP). The program, which provides rebates to EV buyers, is $30 million in debt this year, according to the Capitol Weekly. A new discussion document that was presented at CARB's April 3 meeting lists two main ways that the state could save money while still supporting EV sales. There could be a $60,000 price limit on plug-in vehicles that CARB would subsidize. Option one is to reduce the rebate by $500, which would mean pure EVs would get $2,000 and plug-in hybrids would get $1,000. The other option would be to put a $60,000 price limit on plug-in vehicles that CARB would subsidize. Currently, this would only affect two vehicles: the Tesla Model S and the Cadillac ELR. You can find the details in this PDF; see pages 20-23 for discussion on reducing the rebates. CARB's numbers show that cutting the rebate by $500 would result in "only a minimal short-term impact in the growth of sales of eligible vehicles." The benefit would be that," the budget savings associated with the short-term market delay will more than offset this impact by providing rebates for about 41 percent more vehicles during fiscal year 2014-15 under a fixed budget." As far as limiting the rebate to vehicles that cost less than $60,000, CARB makes the obvious point that, "rebates are more effective in influencing purchase decisions related to vehicles with a MSRP lower than $60,000." CARB thinks this limit will impact no more than two percent of the EV market, "but will allow the program to be more effective in influencing consumer purchase decisions." Plug In America does not support CARB's proposal. PIA's senior policy advisor, Jay Friedland, told AutoblogGreen that: At this early point in the market, Plug In America is working hard along side a coalition of automakers, NGOs, utilities and consumers to maintain the CA Clean Vehicle Rebate at current levels with all vehicles included. Tesla is a leading California EV manufacturer - and has been indispensable to creating the market generally - and should not be excluded from the program. Every EV reduces pollution for kids and adults alike and our dependence on petroleum. We asked Tesla for a statement, but have not heard back.