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.
News
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city, and although the company has revealed plans to launch in six new metros this year, it has yet to establish a new location outside of Austin and the Bay Area of California, where it has operated since last Summer.
A lot full of Model Y vehicles was spotted in Henderson, a town just north of Las Vegas, but there seems to be more than just this hint indicating that the Sin City will be the next location to offer potentially driverless rides in a Tesla using its Full Self-Driving suite.
These Model Ys are not your typical vehicles, as they are fitted with hardware that is only on Robotaxis: a rear camera washer is the dead giveaway:
🚨 These rear camera washers are only present on Robotaxi vehicles
Maybe Las Vegas is the next city to get the Robotaxi suite 😀 https://t.co/my3da5L4zc pic.twitter.com/jYFQuX1j2E
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 17, 2026
The photos and video of the lot were taken by TheZacher on X, who spotted the Model Y fleet in the Henderson parking lot.
The rear camera washer is the main piece of evidence here that indicates Tesla could be looking to expand Robotaxi to Las Vegas, a major ride-hailing hot spot, as it is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the United States. Ride-sharing is a major industry in Vegas, especially for those who are staying off the Strip.
Tesla has also been extremely transparent that Vegas is on its radar for the Robotaxi fleet, as it revealed last year that it was one of five new U.S. cities that it planned to launch the ride-hailing service in this year.
Tesla confirms Robotaxi is heading to five new cities in the U.S.
The others were Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Miami.
Things are expanding for Robotaxi, but the big sign that it is really moving along greatly will be with the expansion to a new city. Tesla has not gone outside of Austin or the Bay Area as of yet, and launching in a new city will be a great indicator of progress.
It will also give Tesla a new benchmark against rival company Waymo, which has operated in Las Vegas for some time.
News
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
The Tesla Roadster is perhaps the most anticipated vehicle in the company’s history, but those who have been waiting anxiously for it will have to push their timelines back once again.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has revealed that the company is once again pushing back the unveiling event that was originally planned for April 1. It will now take place “probably in late April.”
True.
New Roadster unveil probably in late April. https://t.co/NShZxpK5cI
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2026
Musk announced last year that the unveiling, which initially happened back in 2018, would take place on April Fool’s Day. Initial deliveries at the 2018 event were slotted for 2020, but delays in the project, as well as prioritization of other things, continued to push the Roadster back.
There has been so much hype about the Roadster that people are right to be excited about the prospect of its existence.
Musk’s most recent rumblings about the vehicle came last Fall, when he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he once again hinted the car would be able to hover for a short period.
He said:
“Whether it’s good or bad, it will be unforgettable. My friend Peter Thiel once reflected that the future was supposed to have flying cars, but we don’t have flying cars. I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one…I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveiling ever. [It will be unveiled] hopefully before the end of the year. You know, we need to make sure that it works. This is some crazy technology in this car. Let’s just put it this way: if you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it’s crazier than that.”
Additionally, he said the vehicle would not be something that would prioritize safety. Musk said that “If safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster.” It’s made for speed and excitement, not for grocery-getting.
Elon Musk just said some crazy stuff about the Tesla Roadster
As the April 1 unveiling event that was originally planned was nearing without any communication to fans, media, or anyone who would potentially be in attendance, it seemed to be pretty obvious that Tesla was not ready to pull the trigger on the event quite yet.
There could be some last-minute things to finalize, or it could be something else. One thing is for certain, though: we are not super surprised that things were moved back.
Tesla has definitely been putting some things in motion for the Roadster. A few months back, Tesla started to ramp up hiring for the Roadster, and earlier in March, it submitted a patent application for a new seat design.
Elon Musk
Tesla named by U.S. Gov. in $4.3B battery deal for American-made cells
What began as an open secret in the energy industry was confirmed by the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday: Tesla is the buyer behind LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
What began as an open secret in the energy industry is becoming more real after the U.S. Department of the Interior named Tesla as the stakeholder in the LG Energy Solution’s blockbuster $4.3 billion battery supply agreement.
Tesla and LG Energy Solution are expanding their partnership to build a LFP prismatic battery cell manufacturing facility in Lansing, Michigan, launching production in 2027. The announcement, made as part of the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Summit results, ends months of speculation.
“American-made cells will power Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage systems produced in Houston, creating a robust domestic battery supply chain.”, notes a press release on the U.S. Department of the Interior website.
Tesla has long utilized China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. (CATL), the world’s largest LFP battery maker, as one of its primary suppliers. That relationship made financial sense for years, considering that Chinese LFP cells were cheap, abundant, and reliable. But with escalated tariffs on Chinese imports and an increasingly growing Tesla Energy business that’s particularly reliant on LFP cells for products including its Megapack battery storage units designed for utilities and large-scale commercial projects.
The announcement of a deepened partnership between LG Energy Solution and Tesla has strategic logic for both parties. For Tesla, it secures a tariff-compliant, domestically produced battery supply for its fast-growing energy division. LGES, now producing LFP batteries in Michigan, becomes the only major supplier currently scaling U.S. production, outpacing rivals like Samsung SDI and SK On. LG Energy Solution’s Lansing plant, formerly known as Ultium Cells 3, was previously operated as a joint venture with General Motors. LGES acquired GM’s stake in May 2025 and now fully owns the site, with a production capacity of 50 GWh per year. LG Energy said the contract includes options to extend the supply period by up to seven years and boost volumes based on further consultations.
For the broader industry, the ripple effects are significant. This deal signals that domestic battery manufacturing can be financially viable and not just aspirational. Utilities, energy developers, and rival automakers will take note as American-made LFP supply becomes a competitive reality rather than a distant promise.
For consumers, the benefits will take time but are real. A more resilient, U.S.-based supply chain means fewer price shocks from trade disputes, more stable Megapack availability for the grid storage projects that reduce electricity costs, and long-term downward pressure on energy storage prices as domestic production scales.
Deliveries are set to begin in 2027 and run through mid-2030, and as grid storage demand accelerates, reliable, US-made battery supply is no longer a future ambition. It is becoming a core requirement of the country’s energy strategy.
Tesla Robotaxi appears to be heading to a new U.S. city
Tesla Roadster gets new unveiling date once again
