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
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
