News
Inflation Reduction Act supports dealerships & fossil fueled “clean vehicles”
Today, the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act which seems like a good thing for EVs and clean energy at first. However, a look at the bill itself takes us into a rabbit hole that smells of fossil fuels and dealership lobbying.
By changing the very definition of electric vehicles of clean vehicles, the Inflation Reduction Act is showing its support for fossil fuels. Let’s take a look at a thread shared by @WholeMarsBlog who took a deep dive into the Inflation Reduction Act.
How Dealerships benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act
As @WholeMarsBlog pointed out in his thread, the Inflation Reduction Act will allow dealerships to benefit from a subsidy. If a consumer purchases an EV from a dealership, they will be able to transfer that tax credit to a dealership.
This will be the only way they can benefit from that tax credit as direct-to-consumer doesn’t qualify.
This gives dealerships an edge over direct-to-consumer sales by allowing consumers to receive a lower monthly payment than ordering directly from a manufacturer such as Tesla or Rivian.
However, it doesn’t make sense to subsidize an industry that is known for dishonest tactics and treating American consumers badly.
Allowing fossil-fueled vehicles to be “clean vehicles”
A vehicle with an internal combustion engine and a small battery is now considered a “clean vehicle” by this bill. Plug-in hybrid EVs have been touted as a cleaner version of the ICE vehicle because it has a battery and can be charged.
However, these are still fossil-fueled powered vehicles and discourage the sales of actual clean vehicles. As @WholeMarsBlog said, “Why buy an F-150 Lightning when an F-150 hybrid qualifies, too?” He also pointed out that hydrogen cars are also now subsidized.
Battery Minerals need to be sourced domestically
This is done in a very tricky way to make it look like the EV tax credit is being extended, but in reality fossil fuel powered hybrids will qualify while electric vehicles will not.
this is so wrong. if people don't plug in these cars they generate MORE emissions due to weight
— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) August 7, 2022
Rivian and Lucid along with other automakers will lose their $7,500 tax credit next year due to these battery sourcing requirements making it impossible for any full EV to qualify.
This is why it’s so important for automakers to partner with their domestic suppliers. Talon Metals’ Chief External Affairs Officer & Head of Climate Strategy, Todd Malan spoke with me at length on this topic and you read his thoughts here.
Benchmark Minerals’ take on the Inflation Reduction Act
Interesting commentary on the Inflation Reduction Act from @sdmoores https://t.co/Ma5fFElNjv pic.twitter.com/ePZMHVSX5a
— The Limiting Factor (@LimitingThe) August 7, 2022
Benchmark Minerals published an article on what the Inflation Reduction act means for the EV battery supply chain and I think it’s important to consider some of the points they’ve made.
Simon Mores, CEO of Benchmark said that it’s almost impossible that any of the Fair Trade Alliance countries are able to fill China’s raw material gap for our EV demand between now and 2024.
“The presently proposed $7,500 credit for those EVs that do not contain any critical minerals from China or Russia will effectively be made redundant, considering the proposal ends in 2024 just when a domestic supply chain is beginning to gain momentum.”
“It is almost impossible that any Fair Trade Alliance countries – of which Australia and Chile are the stand out – could fill China’s raw material gap for the USA’s EV demand between now and 2024.”
“This is considering the basic lack of raw material supply in many markets and the fact that most future raw material has already been contracted and accounted for.”
“If the US wants the incentive to really work, it needs to extend this by 4 years to 2028 so the battery supply chain builds into the incentive.”
With this thought in mind, @WholeMarsBlog pointed out that smaller batteries could meet the percentage requirements while larger batteries powering the entire vehicle can not. In other words, this opens the door for plug-in hybrid EVs to meet the rising demand for clean vehicles.
My 2.5¢
I think it’s important to note these flaws in the bill, but I also think that we do need a stronger U.S. battery supply chain. However, we shouldn’t sacrifice EVs for fossil fuels to get that stronger supply chain.
I’ve always thought that it was silly to include plug-in hybrid vehicles as a “clean vehciel” when they use both batteries and fossil fuels. Hybrids are great for those who want both options. I’ve also heard the arguments that they are more affordable than a Tesla, but it’s 2022 and if someone is in the market for a new car, there are options for a variety of EVs.
I think @WholeMarsBlog made an excellent point. I think Todd Malan made excellent points as well. At the end of the day, however, politricksters will politrick. The fact that they all agreed on this bill is, I think, kind of shocking.
Disclaimer: Johnna is long Tesla.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
