News
As OK’s anti-Tesla bill moves forward, its author believes a compromise is possible
The electric vehicle community in the United States took a collective gasp earlier this month when a proposed House Bill in Oklahoma unanimously passed a committee vote. The bill in question, HB 3994, aims to update and change parts of existing Oklahoma statutes related to the state’s auto industry. Now, this may sound harmless enough, but a look at the 70-page bill shows that companies like Tesla could lose out heavily if HB 3994 becomes law.
Tesla is already not allowed to directly sell its cars to consumers in Oklahoma, but HB 3994 could give the company even more headaches. What is particularly alarming with HB 3994’s language is the fact that it could be interpreted as a means to prevent automakers like Tesla from delivering and servicing vehicles in the state. This may result in Oklahoma-based Tesla owners being required to travel out of state just to have their vehicles serviced.
Tesla takes the bill very seriously, with the company urging owners on its Engage page to vote “No” to HB 3994. “If passed, this bill could force Tesla to close its existing locations in Oklahoma and prevent Tesla from shipping cars to anyone in the state, which would force locals to travel out-of-state to service their cars or pick up their new Tesla vehicles. Oklahoma should focus on increasing revenue and jobs in the state, not stifling competition and limiting consumer choice,” Tesla noted on its Engage page.
Oppositions and Risks
To state that Oklahoma-based Tesla owners are passionately trying to prevent HB 3994 from progressing further would be an understatement. Tesla owners are currently lobbying against the bill, with some even heading to the capitol last week to speak with the bill’s author, Representative Mike Dobrinski, who has an extensive background in the state’s auto sector. As per Dobrinski’s LinkedIn page, he was the Owner/Dealer of Dobrinski Chevrolet, Inc. until March 2017, and he was the Dealer/Owner of Dobrinski of Kingfisher, Inc., a Chevrolet-Buick-GMC dealership, until October 2018.
The Tesla owners’ talk with the Representative at the capitol last week was brief, according to information shared with Teslarati. Dobrinski highlighted the idea that HB 3994 is a way to protect Tesla owners in Oklahoma because if the EV maker refuses to cover its customers under warranty, then consumers will have no backup. Such a scenario seems unlikely, however.
Senator Mary B. Boren (Credit: Oklahoma Senate)
It’s not just Tesla owners in the state who are against HB 3994. Oklahoma Senator Mary B. Boren, who drives a Tesla Model 3 herself, has openly criticized the bill. In a short conversation with Teslarati, Senator Boren noted that Oklahoma must let the product and the market decide if the state wants innovation to flourish. Initiatives such as HB 3994, which could result in automakers with no dealerships getting the short end of the stick, are counterproductive.
The Senator’s statements could very well ring true. Just recently, reports emerged that Tesla battery partner Panasonic has decided to acquire a factory site in the United States for the production of high-capacity lithium-ion batteries. Panasonic has reportedly shortlisted its preferred US locations to Oklahoma and Kansas. Senator Boren remarked that the presence of bills like HB 3994 could potentially discourage companies like Panasonic from investing in Oklahoma.
“If you have capitalistic laws being passed to protect a particular industry and their business model and to insulate them from the market demands that require them to adjust, then any innovative industry related to EVs will notice that — and they will notice that cronyism is at play. They will find friendlier environments,” Sen. Boren said.
Insights from HB 3994’s Author
The fact that HB 3994 unanimously passed a committee vote earlier this month shows that the bill is also seeing substantial support, despite its harsh repercussions on companies like Tesla and its local electric vehicle owners. When asked by Teslarati about the rationale behind the controversial bill, Rep. Dobrinski explained that HB 3994 is a request bill from the Oklahoma Auto Dealer Association.
“A request bill from the Oklahoma Auto Dealer Association, it seeks to strengthen the position of franchised dealers from the ever-increasing demands and requirements of their legacy manufacturers. Doing so requires addressing Direct Shippers, including Tesla, that are not currently regulated by the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission like franchised dealers are. Proper legislation and regulation will ensure that existing service facilities may remain open and consumers will have additional protections,” Dobrinski noted.
Representative Mike Dobrinski (Credit: Oklahoma State Legislature)
Interestingly enough, the Representative admitted that while HB 3994 includes provisions that may be used to force Tesla into closing its service centers in the state, he does not expect that part of the bill to make it to HB 3994’s final iteration. “I do not expect that provision to be included in the (bill’s) final language,” Dobrinski later stated.
The Representative deserves praise for his honesty with HB 3994, though one may wonder why the controversial bill’s most heavy-handed provisions were included in the first place. When confronted by Tesla owners online, Dobrinski has maintained that HB 3994 is far from finished, but it has already opened the doors for communication among automotive businesses in the state.
“This bill, as introduced, is far from the finished product. It is forcing engagement from franchise auto dealers, legacy manufacturers, and new EV manufacturers, including Tesla. These folks are all talking now for the first time ever to work on a plan of regulation going forward that ensures competition and improves customer satisfaction under the purview of the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission,” Dobrinski wrote.
A Price for Compromise?
Considering the statements of HB 3994’s author, it appears that the bill could partly be seen as a way to achieve a compromise of sorts between companies like Tesla, electric vehicle owners, and the state’s franchised auto dealerships. However, existing Tesla owners in Oklahoma fear that if HB 3994 passes into law, it could adversely affect not only their ownership experience but also their daily lives.
Cristen Winter Huber, a Tesla owner and a foster mother, is one of them. Being a foster mother, Huber is unable to take her foster children outside Oklahoma without a judge’s permission. According to Huber, the harsher portions of HB 3994 could effectively disrupt her family dynamic, and it might motivate her to leave the state.
“It’s not feasible for my family to drive out of state frequently. I’m a parent and foster parent. I have to get approval from a judge to take my foster child out of state. If I have to leave the state to service my car, I might as well move to a state that welcomes growth and innovation,” Huber said.
Jochen Hoppert, the President of the Tesla Owners Club of Oklahoma, noted that HB 3994 is not only a step in the wrong direction — it can have repercussions far beyond Tesla. The Tesla Club President also stated that so far, the EV maker’s service centers in Oklahoma City and Tulsa are proving that Tesla is serious about supporting its customers.
“Tesla is still not permitted to sell or deliver vehicles from those locations. We hope that will change in the future, yet this anti-competitive bill is clearly a step in the opposite direction. It’s worth noting that this move would not only negatively affect Tesla and the local Tesla community but other up-and-coming electric vehicle manufacturers wishing to do business in the state.
“Rep. Mike Dobrinski, the creator of this bill… has shared his perspective, which includes the notion that this bill would provide benefit to the consumer by allowing the state to manage the presence of warranty, service, and other such things for the consumer as required features of the electric vehicle marketplace. The Tesla service centers in Oklahoma City and Tulsa already demonstrate Tesla’s desire to provide its customers with such services,” Hoppert said.
Following its unanimous committee approval, House Bill 3994 has now advanced to the House Floor. But before the bill could become a law, the Oklahoma Governor would have to approve it first. With this in mind, Tesla owners and electric vehicle advocates still have some time to fight against the bill, or at least lobby for significant changes. Rep. Mike Dobrinski himself has been consistent with the idea that HB 3994 is still open for edits, so it may be a good idea for Tesla owners in the state to push their efforts even more from this point forward.
Those interested in speaking up and supporting Tesla’s efforts against Oklahoma’s HB 3994 could click here.
A copy of Oklahoma HB 3994 could be viewed below.
Hb3994 Int by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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’
