News

As OK’s anti-Tesla bill moves forward, its author believes a compromise is possible

(Credit: teslarepairs/Instagram)

Published

4 years ago

March 15, 2022

Simon Alvarez

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.

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.

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.

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 real-world drive and review

Published

7 hours ago

November 13, 2025

Joey Klender

tesla interior operating on full self driving

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla started rolling out its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.1.7 suite last night to owners, and there are several improvements to note within the new update that are at least the start of fixes to highly-mentioned issues.

On an hour-long drive, we tested v14.1.7 and tested its new capabilities, which are mostly overall performance and smoothness fixes rather than integrations of new features that are unknown to routine FSD users. However, there are a handful of shortcomings that are still present within the suite, which are not something that will be fixed within the span of a single update.

For what it is, Full Self-Driving does an excellent job of navigating — once you get it on its correct path. Our issues tend to be confined to navigation, routing, and the decision-making process that has to do with the way the car wants to get you to your destination. There were five things that happened on our first drive with v14.1.7 that are worth mentioning. The full drive will be available at the bottom of this article.

Navigation and Routing Still Seems to Be a Major Challenge

In past content, we’ve discussed the issues with routing and navigation, and how a Tesla chooses its path. Most noticeably, these issues occur in the same areas; for me, it’s my local Supercharger. My 2026 Model Y with AI4 continues to pick less-than-optimal routes out of the Supercharger, and in this instance, it actually chose to turn down a road, pull over, and give me the wheel, essentially asking, “Hey, can you get me on the right track here?”

This is still my biggest bone to pick with FSD, even more so than some of the bonehead moves it’s made in tougher scenarios (mostly parking lots with very limited visibility due to shrubs being planted in the worst possible locations). It’s rare that it happens, but this particular Supercharger has been a true thorn in the side of my Tesla.

This is not an issue that is confined to v14.1.7, or even v14 in general. Unfortunately, it is an issue that has persisted throughout my ownership experience, as well as during Demo Drives.

Still dealing with this Navigation/Routing issue. FSD still hasn’t figured out how to exit this Supercharger.
FSD chose to pull over and let me work it out of its predicament: pic.twitter.com/ZOIsA7eW2C

— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Stuttering and Hesitation at Intersections was Non-Existent

There was some confusion regarding my language in a recent article where I stated Tesla is confronting the issues that have been reported regarding the “stabbing” with braking.

“Tesla began the v14.1.4 launch last night, which included minor improvements and addressed brake-stabbing issues many owners have reported. In my personal experience, the stabbing has been awful on v14.1.3, and is a major concern.

However, many things have improved, and only a couple of minor issues have been recurring. Many of the issues v13 addressed are no longer an issue, so Tesla has made significant progress.”
It has undoubtedly improved, but it is not resolved.

With that being said, I did not feel a single example of hesitation, stabbing, or stuttering at a single intersection or instance when it has been present in the past. CEO Elon Musk said it would be fixed with v14.2, so it seems like Tesla is well on its way to resolving it.

Proper Handling of Crosswalks

It’s crazy how many people still do not stop for pedestrians at clearly-marked crosswalks. I had two instances of it happen during the drive, with FSD stopping for those pedestrians both times.

Human drivers did not stop either time:

Two instances of FSD stopping for pedestrians at crosswalks while human drivers proceed: pic.twitter.com/b4W7GXsXwH
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Handled Merging onto a Highway with an Inconsiderate Driver Well

Routinely, drivers will get over into the left lane, if they are able, to allow merging traffic to safely enter the freeway. It does not always happen this way, and it’s not required by law.

Not exclusive to v14.1.7, as many past iterations would have done this as well, but it was nice to watch the vehicle slow down to let that traffic pass. It then entered the freeway safely, and the entire maneuver was well done.

Not exclusive to v14.1.7, but just a great job of allowing highway traffic to pass before merging: pic.twitter.com/Hl9Hr0N5Jc
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Took an Appropriate Move with Oncoming Foot Traffic and Debris in a Tight Alleyway

This was probably the most on-edge I was during the drive because: 1) FSD chose to take an unnecessary alleyway, and 2) there was a box and oncoming pedestrians.

The car was aware of everything that was going on. In order to avoid the box, it would have had to turn toward the pedestrians, and in order to avoid the pedestrians, it would have had to turn into the box.

It chose to wait patiently, and after the pedestrians were past the car, FSD chose to proceed.

A patient FSD debates pedestrians and debris.
It chooses to not turn toward the humans or the box, instead waiting for a clear path to proceed. EXCELLENT and my favorite part of the drive pic.twitter.com/JNVxuxkhmn

— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 13, 2025

Closing Thoughts

Overall, we’re very impressed with v14.1.7, and we think this is Tesla’s best iteration of the FSD suite yet, as it should be since it’s the newest version available. Tesla’s attention to detail regarding the brake stabbing is really well done, and it seems evident that a complete fix is on its way.

Other than the navigation issue at the very beginning, which was not an intervention, at least in my opinion, this was a really successful drive.

Elon Musk

Elon Musk debunks report claiming xAI raised $15 billion in funding round

xAI also responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, stating, “Legacy Media Lies.”

Published

9 hours ago

November 13, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Credit: xAI

Elon Musk has debunked a report claiming his AI startup xAI had raised $15 billion from a funding round. Reports of the alleged funding round were initially reported by CNBC, which cited sources reportedly familiar with the matter.

CNBC’s report

The CNBC story cited unnamed sources that claimed that the new capital injection would help fund GPUs that xAI needs to train its large language model, Grok. The news outlet noted that following the funding round, xAI was valued at $200 billion.

Artificial intelligence startups have been raising funds from investors as of late. OpenAI raised $6.6 billion in October, valuing the startup at a staggering $500 billion. Reuters also reported last month that OpenAI was preparing for an IPO with a valuation of $1 trillion. Elon Musk’s xAI is looking to catch up and disrupt OpenAI, as well as its large language model, ChatGPT, which has become ubiquitous.

False— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 13, 2025

Elon Musk and xAI’s responses

In his response on X, Elon Musk simply stated that the CNBC story was “false.” He did not, however, explain if the whole premise of the publication’s article was fallacious, or if only parts of it were inaccurate.

Amusingly enough, xAI also issued a response when asked about the matter by Reuters, which also reported on the story. The artificial intelligence startup responded with what appeared to be an automated reply, which read, “Legacy Media Lies.”

xAI, founded in July 2023 as an alternative to OpenAI and Anthropic, has aggressively built out infrastructure to support its flagship products, including Grok and its recently launched Grokipedia platform. The company is developing its Colossus supercomputer in Memphis, which is heralded as one of the world’s largest supercomputer clusters.

News

Tesla reportedly testing Apple CarPlay integration: report

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally.

Published

12 hours ago

November 13, 2025

Simon Alvarez

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is reportedly testing Apple’s CarPlay software for its vehicles, marking a major shift after years of resisting the tech giant’s ecosystem.

Citing insiders reportedly familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News claimed that CarPlay is being trialed by the EV maker internally. The move could help Tesla gain more market share, as surveys have shown many buyers consider CarPlay as an essential feature when choosing a car.

Not the usual CarPlay experience

Bloomberg claimed that Tesla’s tests involve a rather unique way to integrate CarPlay. Instead of replacing the vehicle’s entire infotainment display, Tesla’s integration will reportedly feature a CarPlay window on the infotainment system. This limited approach will ensure that Tesla’s own software, such as Full Self-Driving’s visuals, remains dominant.

The feature is expected to support wireless connectivity as well, bringing Tesla in line with other luxury automakers that already offer CarPlay. While plans remain fluid and may change before public release, the publication’s sources claimed that the rollout could happen within months.

A change of heart

Tesla has been reluctant to grant Apple access to its in-car systems, partly due to Elon Musk’s past criticism of the tech giant’s App Store policies and its poaching of Tesla engineers during the failed Apple Car project. Tesla’s in-house software is also deemed by numerous owners as a superior option to CarPlay, thanks to its sleek design and rich feature set.

With Apple’s retreat from building cars and Elon Musk’s relationship with Apple for X and Grok, however, the CEO’s stance on the tech giant seems to be improving. Overall, Tesla’s potential CarPlay integration would likely be appreciated by owners, as a McKinsey & Co. survey last year found that roughly one-third of buyers considered the lack of such systems a deal-breaker.