News
Indiana is back with another bill to ban Tesla’s direct sales model
If a proposed Indiana House bill is passed, manufacturers of “all-electric vehicles” would be banned from selling directly to consumers. The bill does not direct any specific language to Tesla Motors, Inc., but the innovative vehicle manufacturer is clearly the target of the legislation. Add Indiana into the mix of Tesla’s long list of court cases pending in which car dealers and automakers claim that they, as intermediaries, have sole right to sell vehicles to consumers.
Indiana House Bill 1592
Indiana automakers have traditionally used an established network of dealers who negotiate with buyers and provide automotive repair services. These automakers are part of a large umbrella of politically influential groups. They argue that Tesla’s model allows the company to evade laws, which confers an unfair advantage to Tesla and provides no accountability to its buyers.
Here is the synopsis of the Indiana House Bill 1592.
Automobile sales requirements. Provides that a manufacturer may engage in sales directly to the public only if the manufacturer meets certain requirements. Provides that a manufacturer can no longer engage in sales directly to the public after the earlier of: (1) reaching 1,000 units in cumulative annual sales; or (2) six years after the initial dealer’s license is granted.
Additionally, Sec. 20. of the bill reads:
A manufacturer licensed under this article may engage in sales directly to the general public only if the manufacturer (1) has exclusively offered for sale to the general public in Indiana all-electric vehicles on a continuous basis since July 15, 2015; (2) has never offered for sale to the general public in Indiana a line make of new motor vehicles through a franchised motor vehicle dealer.
Tesla is the only vehicle manufacturer which meets these particular criteria. Tesla sells its electric vehicles directly to consumers, while other manufacturers like General Motors, Ford, Subaru, and Toyota sell through Indiana dealerships. If passed, the bill would severely limit Tesla’s ability as a manufacturer to sell to the public:
Subject to the expiration schedule under IC 9-32-11-12.5, a manufacturer can no longer sell to the public after the earlier of the following: (1) A manufacturer described in this section reaches cumulative annual sales of one thousand (1,000) units to the general public from its licensed location in Indiana.
The author of the bill, Rep. Edmond Soliday, a Republican, has authored or co-authored several transportation bills, including transportation infrastructure funding, automated traffic enforcement, vehicle excise taxes, and department of transportation property matters. He defeated Midwest Environmental Systems CEO Pamela Fish in the November, 2016 elections. House Bill 1592 will be heard by the Roads and Transportation committee.
Last year another Republican, Rep. Kevin Mahan, supported a similar bill that would have forced manufacturers to sell their vehicles through a dealership. “For the average Hoosier, purchasing an automobile can be daunting and a big investment,” Mahan said. “A greater variety of vehicles are now available and can be brought directly to consumers virtually anywhere in the country. In the event of a recall or malfunction, consumers should be protected.”
Arguments against limiting manufacturer sales
Tesla Motors, Inc.’s Vice President of Corporate and Business Development Diarmuid O’Connell testified against House Bill 1592. “Tesla does not operate through some kind of loophole in Indiana law,” O’Connell said. “The current law is explicit in Tesla’s ability to sell directly and, as written today, it is not broken.” O’Connell’s remarks point to current Indiana law in which an auto manufacturer is not allowed to open a store in direct competition with an affiliated franchised dealer. Tesla has no direct competition franchise dealers in Indiana and has always sold directly to consumers. O’Connell added that Tesla’s presence in Indiana has “brought only good to the consumer welfare without harming anyone — not even the dealers.”
At stake is more than a corporate tug-of-war between automakers. Tesla’s electric vehicles are at the heart of that vision for tomorrow’s consumer domestic transportation and will continue to flourish and change the way automakers in the U.S. and abroad have conducted business as usual.
If “you’re interested in promoting competition and free market principles … you recognize direct distribution, particularly for a company like Tesla, is critically important,” said Todd Maron, the company’s chief counsel, during remarks at a 2016 Federal Trade Commission event. “We don’t simply believe that [electric vehicles] represent a nice complement to gas powered cars. We believe that it’s imperative that they are replaced entirely by electric vehicles.” An end to franchising laws would advance that goal and place low-mileage gas-powered vehicles at risk of obsolescence.
Arguments in favor of limiting manufacturer sales
A coalition of free market groups, led by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, argues that ending or restricting automotive franchising would actually decrease consumer choice. Norquist believes that reducing competition among dealers selling the same car brands hurts consumers. Franchising laws were actually created by anti-trust efforts at the Federal Trade Commission and “they sustain market competition rather than undermine it.” Last year, the group accused federal regulators of ignoring evidence that would undermine proposed measures governing automotive sales that stand to enrich what they saw as a “politically-powerful company” at consumers’ expense.
Harry Tepe, owner of Tom Tepe Auto Center in Milan, Indiana, supports legislation that would further protect consumers in the auto industry. “We just want to make sure there are protections in place for the consumers,” Tepe said. “The issue at hand is that the loophole is still open that allows any manufacturer to come in and market a vehicle and sell directly to the public without having any protections in place for the consumer.” He takes the position that dealerships are responsible for being a liaison between the consumer and the manufacturer.
Lobbying on behalf of the automotive industry
Proponents and opponents of Indiana House Bill 1592 are, in many cases, influenced by a powerful automotive lobby in the U.S. Automotive industry lobbyists use a combination of strategies to gain influence. They do a lot of research, sit down with lawmakers one-on-one, deliver messages in writing, and call Congressmen and members of the administration on the phone.
“If you’re a big company, like a carmaker, and you’re lobbying lawmakers, you’re almost like a pro sports team. You want to get the big names, the most talented, most knowledgeable people,” said David Levinthal, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group that tracks the money spent in the U.S. political system and its effect on elections and public policy. “So, these big companies, in the major industries, hire former Congressmen and top Congressional staffers and other high-ranking government officials to be their lobbyists, because those are the folks who know who all the other major players are and they know the ways of Washington.”
Source: OpenSecrets.org
Elon Musk
County vote hands Elon Musk’s Vegas tunnel network a huge new target
Clark County approved 19 more Vegas Loop stations, pushing Boring Company’s entitled total to 123.
The Boring Company just got permission to nearly double how far Vegas Loop can reach. Clark County commissioners approved 19 additional stations for the underground transit system, bringing the total entitled to 123, the company said in a post on X thanking the county for the vote. Elon Musk’s tunneling company also flagged the direction it sees the project heading long term. “Because Loop is point-to-point with no intermediate stops, in the limit, one could have a Loop station in every driveway,” the company wrote.
That framing captures how far the ambitions have moved. The Vegas Loop opened its first stretch of tunnel in 2021 and has grown its footprint through a string of county approvals since. In 2023, commissioners signed off on 18 additional stations, part of a plan that later doubled the system’s target to 69 stations across 65 miles. By the end of that year the company was describing a build out closer to 93 planned stations. Last year the long term design called for 104 stations across 68 miles of tunnel. The new approval pushes that number to 123, another jump in a project that keeps outgrowing its own blueprints.
The Boring Company gets approval for more stations in Las Vegas
Station count on paper is still well ahead of what riders can actually use. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, the network has about 11 open stations and has carried more than 4 million passengers since it began running, with newer stops at Fontainebleau and Sahara among the latest additions to the Strip corridor. A tunnel connection to Harry Reid International Airport remains under construction and has already slipped past its original first quarter target. The company is also racing to finish a Westgate to Paradise Road segment that Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO Steve Hill has said it hopes to have running in time for November’s Formula 1 race.
The gap between entitled stations and operating ones is where the real story sits. Regulatory approval gives Boring Company the legal runway to keep tunneling toward new resorts, residential pockets and eventually the airport, but building each connection still comes down to boring machines, fire safety sign offs and construction timelines that have slipped before. The company’s Prufrock series machines set an internal record in March with a 2.28 mile tunnel near Westgate, evidence that construction has been picking up even as the list of approved destinations grows faster than the tunnels themselves.
Musk’s driveway comment reads as aspirational rather than a near term plan, but it fits how Boring Company has talked about Vegas Loop from the start: treat every approval as a floor, not a ceiling, and keep pushing county officials for room to dig.
SpaceX announced today that it would expand its launch capabilities into a new U.S. state: Louisiana.
Today, SpaceX, in conjunction with the Louisiana Economic Development Office, said that it will establish a new launch facility, which it will call Starbase, Louisiana. It will be located near Vermilion Parish, supporting thousands of launches each year, at least eventually.
CEO Elon Musk commented by stating, “Starbase Louisiana will ultimately have over a dozen launch towers, enabling more than 30 Starship flights per day and making it the biggest launch site on Earth!”
Starbase Louisiana will ultimately have over a dozen launch towers, enabling more than 30 Starship flights per day and making it the biggest launch site on Earth!
SpaceX makes sci-fi real. https://t.co/C7Ht0U12ba
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2026
The expansion is SpaceX’s latest move to push its launch cadence to be more frequent than ever. SpaceX said that Starbase, Louisiana, will be built to “support thousands of Starship flights a year,” with the first coming in 2029.
SpaceX announced the new facility in partnership with the Louisiana Economic Development Office as it will bring a major influx of jobs and investments into the area. Currently, it will produce more than 3,000 new jobs in Louisiana, and SpaceX plans to invest at least $100 billion into the entire facility, ensuring that many jobs are created as a result.
Environmental Responsibility
SpaceX acknowledges the impact launches could have on marshlands, local wildlife, and water sources. Here’s how the company plans to help with the issues in Vermilion Parish:
- Restoring the Shoreline: “In Vermilion Parish, the shoreline is eroding between 3.3 and 23 feet per year. We’re partnering with state and federal agencies to expand Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan and Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act projects, including Gulf shoreline protection breakwaters designed to reduce wave energy and slow loss along the Gulf edge.”
- Rebuilding the Marshlands: “In working with the state, we’re planning thousands of acres of marsh creation using beneficial-use placement of dredged material and offshore sediment sources. Restoration will also include interior marsh bank stabilization and rebuilding marsh in remnant canals. These projects can reconnect fragmented wetlands, restore natural buffers against storms, and return habitat that has been lost to erosion and historic canalization.”
- Preserving Coastal Wildlife: “Pecan Island and nearby wetlands are high-value habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other coastal wildlife. SpaceX is not developing the full footprint of the land and will preserve wetlands and wildlife habitat. At existing launch sites, waterfowl and other birds continue to use nearby habitat during operations. Working with wildlife agencies, landowners, and conservation groups, SpaceX will support monitoring and management so this habitat stays productive and hunting, fishing, birding, and other recreational activities that are part of this coast’s culture can continue.”
SpaceX shares rose about 2.5 percent on the news.
Tesla Cybertruck trims saw a big price change, at least on two of the three available to consumers, as demand for the all-electric pickup appears to be increasing.
Tesla bumped up its Base All-Wheel-Drive trim level up to $74,990 from $69,990 and the Premium All-Wheel-Drive configuration from $79,990 to $84,990. The Cyberbeast price remains unchanged at $99,990.
🚨 Cybertruck prices went up as Tesla bumped them 7%
– Tesla Cybertruck AWD is now $74,990
– Tesla Cybertruck Premium AWD now $84,990
– Tesla Cyberbeast now $99,990 https://t.co/MYJbaw56GL— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 25, 2026
Despite questions of demand for the truck, Tesla is bumping its two least expensive trims up $5,000 to signal that there are plenty of buyers. Although SpaceX has been buying Tesla Cybertruck units to utilize as company vehicles, it is no secret that the Cybertruck is among the most sought-after Tesla models out there.
The issue has always been pricing, at least for the most part. When Tesla initially launched the Cybertruck AWD at $59,990 a few months back, the company stated that price would remain intact for just ten days due to the influx of orders it received.
Cybertruck Sales: Is It the Product or Pricing?
Depending on who you ask, you will likely hear one of two explanations for relatively low Cybertruck sales: either the product itself or the pricing.
Yes, this is the best-selling all-electric pickup on the market. However, there are people who simply hate the look of it, which I understand, but do not agree with. Look is totally subjective, and I love the look of the Cybertruck.
Some people will not buy the Cybertruck because of the look, but I am under the impression that sales would be much better if this truck were priced lower; something that might not be possible considering Tesla’s need to make money on its products. When it was unveiled in 2019, its most expensive trim level was $69,990. Now, the cheapest trim level is more expensive than that.
I would be in a Cybertruck if it were more affordable. I LOVE my Model Y, but Cybertruck is the best vehicle Tesla makes, and it’s not particularly close. Even in the base model, the steer-by-wire, the space, storage, and performance make it more desirable than the Model Y to me. I cannot be the only Tesla owner without a Cybertruck who feels this way.
If you’re interested in buying a Tesla vehicle, use my referral link.
County vote hands Elon Musk’s Vegas tunnel network a huge new target
SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’
