Tesla’s Support for California’s Electric Car Policy Clashes with Trump’s Opposition

[Social Media]

 

In a move that highlights the complex interplay between his political alliances and business priorities, Elon Musk’s Tesla has publicly endorsed California’s climate policy to promote electric vehicles, even as former President Donald Trump, a political ally of Musk, vows to dismantle it if he is reelected.

 

While some Republicans argue that California's plan will drive up gas prices, Musk’s electric car company insists the policy is beneficial both economically and environmentally, supporting California’s low-carbon fuel standard, which sets emissions limits for all transportation fuels sold in the state.

 

Tesla joined other electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers, including Hyundai, GM, Audi, and Rivian, in urging California lawmakers to maintain the low-carbon fuel standard. In a letter to lawmakers on October 24, Tesla and its peers stated, “This program has achieved significant economic and environmental benefits for Californians, and we strongly support its continued advancement to drive even greater progress.” The letter, exclusively obtained by Politico, reflects a unified front among EV manufacturers, despite Musk’s political alliance with Trump.

 

Musk’s support of California’s climate initiatives brings attention to a growing friction between his political and business interests. As Tesla and other EV companies advocate for policies that incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles, Trump has moderated his criticism of EVs in light of Musk’s influence as a campaign surrogate.

 

Nevertheless, Trump remains committed to overturning California’s leading electric vehicle regulations. At a recent rally in Southern California, he declared, “I would not allow California politicians to get away with their plan to impose a 100 percent ban on the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks.” California has set ambitious goals to phase out the sale of combustion engine trucks by 2045 and gas-powered cars by 2035, which Trump has targeted as a key point of opposition.

 

The policy updates proposed for California’s low-carbon fuel standard have also sparked debate among Congressional Republicans. Representatives Michelle Steel and David Valadao, both facing challenging reelection campaigns, joined other Republicans in opposing the amendments. On October 24, they signed a letter urging California regulators to delay the upcoming vote, citing concerns over potential gas price hikes, with state regulators previously estimating the amendments could increase costs by as much as 47 cents per gallon.

 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has consistently backed the low-carbon fuel standard in the face of opposition from the oil industry and state Republicans. He has also pursued measures to address California’s high gas prices, including pushing for greater oversight of oil refiners and advocating for increased ethanol content in gasoline to help lower costs.

 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is set to vote on the proposed amendments to the low-carbon fuel standard on November 8, a decision that will be closely watched by both supporters and critics. As the state leads the charge for cleaner transportation, Tesla’s endorsement underscores the company’s alignment with California’s environmental goals, even as its founder navigates a complicated political landscape with allies who hold opposing views on the future of clean energy.

 

Based on a report by Politico 2024-11-01

 

 

 

[neeray]

It's only a matter of time until these two egocentrics clash and fall out of love, then start bad mouthing each other and name calling like a pair of school yard boys.

[spidermike007]

If it leads to environmental devastation, if it leads to the dismantling of any kind of environmental safeguards, if it leads to the destruction of wilderness areas and the complete surrender of national lands to mining, timber and big oil, Trump is there to support it.

 

That is just who the man is, that it's just what he's all about, it's all about corporations, and it's never about the people, despite his protestations to the contrary. 

[john donson]

sure tesla will be there to collect some billions of subsidies for tesla, space x, x , ...

[AndreasHG]

Usual Trump's bombastic rhetoric, while perfectly knowing which side his bread is buttered on.

No worries: Tesla will keep on making profits on regulatory credits (31% of Tesla EBITDA from 2016 to the end of Q3-2024), federal EV tax credits ($7,500 per vehicle), Space X will keep on entering into profitable supply contracts with NASA and the Pentagon, X Corp. and xAI Corp. will still benefit from a lenient regulatory environment.

A win-win.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by AndreasHG

[pattayasan]

2 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

Usual Trump's bombastic rhetoric, while perfectly knowing which side his bread is buttered on.

No worries: Tesla will keep on making profits on regulatory credits (31% of Tesla EBITDA from 2016 to the end of Q3-2024), federal EV tax credits ($7,500 per vehicle), Space X will keep on entering into profitable supply contract with NASA and the Pentagon, X Corp. and xAI Corp. will still benefit from a lenient regulatory environment.

A win-win.

 

The irony is that he wants to impose a huge tariff on Chinese EV's because they subsidize their companies.

[Cryingdick]

4 hours ago, pattayasan said:

 

The irony is that he wants to impose a huge tariff on Chinese EV's because they subsidize their companies.

Those subsidies are running out for Tesla. Musk has also said once the Chinese start to flood the market it will destroy the USA auto industry as they will not be able to compete. Basically if there is no tariff there will be no American car businesses left to fight over subsidies.

Edited 6 hours ago by Cryingdick

[AndreasHG]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Those subsidies are running out for Tesla

Any evidence supporting this statement? Because reality points to a different direction.

 

[Cryingdick]

33 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

Any evidence supporting this statement? Because reality points to a different direction.

 

It was limited to cars sold. Something like the first 250,000.