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
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
